Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” →
Mennonites / Amish →
Gospel Herald
This is the first in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
I was crazy enough recently to go through 133 years of back issues of The Mennonite (associated with the General Conference Mennonite Church), and, apparently my penance not yet completed, I decided to forge ahead with the journal of another major Mennonite group.
The Mennonite Church, sometimes called the “Old” Mennonite Church, and not to be confused with the General Conference Mennonite Church, coalesced among Swiss Brethren emigrants in late-18th century Pennsylvania, though the first of its congregations there dates back as far as .
From there, (Old) Mennonties spread into Virginia, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and beyond, and would eventually have congregations in many parts of the United States and Canada.
The Herald of Truth began publishing in under editor John Fretz Funk, “[t]he most important figure in the life of the (Old) Mennonites in the nineteenth century,” according to An introduction to Mennonite history: a popular history of the Anabaptists and the Mennonites (Cornelius J. Dyck, ; J.C. Wenger wrote the chapter on the Old Mennonite Church, which I used for this summary).
In , The Gospel Witness began publishing under editor Danel Kauffmann.
It bought out The Herald of Truth in and merged the two magazines to form Gospel Herald, which continued under Kauffmann’s editorship.
The Herald of Truth began publishing in the middle of the American Civil War, which gives us the opportunity to immediately contrast the Mennonite Church point of view on conscientious objection to war with that of their cousin “peace church,” the Quakers.
For example, Quakers by and large at this time were unwilling to take up arms in the military, to serve in the military in noncombatant roles, to pay for substitutes to serve in their place, or to pay “commutation fines” in lieu of service if they were drafted.
(In practice, however, many Quakers did not go along with this official position.)
Mennonites were not so strict.
A more typical Mennonite position would forbid military service or the paying of substitutes, but considered the payment of commutation fines to be a reasonable compromise, and indeed expressed gratitude to the government for permitting it.
For example, here is editor John F. Funk in , reviewing Daniel Musser’s pamphlet Non-Resistance Asserted.
He writes “I am highly pleased with the contents.
I believe it contains my own views on this subject through out, and would recommend it to be read by all who profess to maintain this important doctrine [nonresistance].”
Mussen writes of the latest Union military draft:
[T]he powers again ordered a draft without exempting any for conscience’ sake.
The request was personal service or three hundred dollars of money.
The personal service they [the nonresistants] could not render.
The money belongs to the kingdom of this world and they [the government] had a right to demand it as their own.
Paul says; We shall pay tribute and custom to who it is due, and says we shall do so because of the duties the Government has to discharge.
They now ask our person or the money, the latter is theirs and we make conscience of the duty to pay it, and feel that it would be wrong to refuse to do so.
However, he writes that it is improper for nonresistant people to offer financial inducements to others to enlist in order to meet the enlistment quota for a region and spare nonresistants from being drafted:
But how can those who profess to be disciples of Jesus Christ, and say as such, Christ has forbidden them to fight, join in with our opponents, and pay men to go and fight for them, or in their stead?
It is said, “It is to avoid the draft;” but by what means?
Inducing other men to go in our stead!
Any one can see that there is no consistency here.
If it is wrong for me to go, it is wrong to pay another to go for me.
[T]hrough the kindness of our government, our people are yet allowed to pay their commutation money, instead of giving personal service, for which our hearts should ever rise in gratitude and praise to the giver of all good.
The brethren here raised about 2000 dollars to help those who are drafted pay their fines.
The issue included this editorial, in which Funk put the arguments he’d quoted from Musser’s pamphlet in his own words:
A serious consideration
Since the present war commenced, many serious and important questions have presented themselves to the minds of many persons, and to none more so than to those who maintain and adhere to the doctrine of non-resistance.
The question has been asked by very many, whether it is right for a non-resistant to hire and send into the army a substitute; and whether right or wrong, this has sometimes been done; but it is now generally admitted to be wrong, and thee is probably, scarcely a single one who professes to hold to the doctrine of non-resistance, that would be willing to send a man to do that which he himself is not permitted to do, and which he considers altogether against the gospel of Jesus Christ, whose footsteps we all desire to follow.
In my own mind I am fully persuaded that it is wrong, and if we do it we assume the terrible responsibility of violating our conscience and breaking the commands of the Savior, besides acting inconsistently before the eyes of the world.
During the recent drafts, however, another question presented itself to the minds of nearly all non-resistants.
It may be stated as follows: “May a non-resistant connect himself with a township or district organization and pay a certain amount of money to secure himself and the township against the draft?[”] It is my purpose in this article to consider this question, though I do it with the full consciousness that I am writing upon a very delicate and a much-disputed question — a question upon which many of the brethren hold different views, and some indeed hold that it is our duty to aid such an organization, without asking any question as for conscience’ sake.
Now I do not wish to interfere with the views of any one or to write merely for the sake of argument, but as one standing in the position where I do, I cannot keep my own conscience free, unless I try to do my whole duty — I write for the love of souls, I desire that all should know the whole will of God and I pray, that knowing it, we may all strive to do it.
Let us therefore in the spirit of Christian love consider it, knowing that we must all give account of these things at the great judgment day.
In my humble opinion the latter question is very similar to the first and may be decided in the same way, namely as inconsistent.
The reason why I think so is as follows.
The rulers and law-makers of our country recognize the fact that there are communities of people, forming a part of the inhabitants of the country, who always have and still do maintain the principle of non-resistance.
And the privilege of maintaining this principle has always been guarantied to them, even by the first framers of the constitution of our land; and by the grace of God, if we are faithful and true, may we not hope, that as civilization advances, this principle shall become more and more popular — be more and more respected and recognized through all future times?
In consideration of these non-resistants, Congress has made a law, and it was sanctioned by the Chief Magistrate, which provides a way through which they can do their share of the duty devolving upon them as citizens of this country, without violating their conscience.
This law provides that they “shall be assigned by the Secretary of War to duty in the hospitals or to the care of Freedmen, or pay the sum of three hundred dollars, to be applied to the benefit of the sick and wounded soldiers.”
Thus far the Secretary of War has always directed the money to be paid, so that none, thus far, have been compelled to go even in to the hospitals.
Now a non-resistant may comply with either of the above conditions without violating his conscience; for should he be ordered into the hospital, his duty would be to take care of the sick and wounded, and this is a work which all may do, freely and heartily; yea, it is our duty to relieve suffering wherever found, and the Bible requires us to be subject to all the requirements of the government as long as we are not required to do anything by which we violate our conscience, and the Law of God.
In the second place if we are required to pay the commutation fee, we can do that also, inasmuch as the law provides that it shall be applied to the benefit of the sick and wounded soldiers; thus in this case also our money is not used to carry on the war, but to relieve suffering, but even if it were, we would still be justified in paying it without questioning what use was made of it afterwards; for we pay our taxes and the responsibility of applying them rests with the officers of government and not with us, as Jesus also gave us an example when he sent Peter saying: “Notwithstandng lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook and take up the fish that first cometh up: and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take and give unto them for me and thee.”
Hence, for conscience’ sake, there is no occasion — no necessity for a non-resistant to pursue any other course than that which is here laid down by the government, and whether any other course can safely and consistently be followed is very doubtful.
The difference between paying the commutation fee to the government, and a certain amount to a town organization is simply this: In paying the commutation fee, we give to the government what it demands of us in the same manner as we pay our taxes, which is our Christian duty as every one will admit, both according to the precepts and the example of Christ, as well as that of the apostles; besides this money is not used for war purposes, but goes to relieve the sick and suffering ones in hospitals.
In paying a certain amount to a society or to a township organization, we give that amount for a certain purpose, and that purpose is to pay men to go as soldiers in the army to engage in war, a thing which we ourselves cannot do for conscience’ sake, and which government does not even ask of us, because as a conscientious people they have kindly remembered us and provided for us another way, which we may take, and to which the most sensitive conscience cannot find a single objection.
In the latter case, also, the money is given voluntarily to this special purpose, and for this reason we are responsible for the use we have made of it, for we are stewards of God, holding in trust that which He has committed to our care.
In the former case it is demanded of us by those in authority over us, who have power to demand it, and as already stated we pay it for conscience’ sake, as a debt we owe to the government and are no longer responsible for the use they make of it.
But it may be urged that we should do this as an act of mercy and kindness to those around us.
Now, allow me, my dear brethren, to speak my mind plainly.
I pray that God may direct my thoughts so that I may be able to explain his truth fully and give no offence.
I wish to say this: If we can do a certain amount of good by paying our money in this manner, we can certainly do more good by going directly into the field.
We can fill a place there, and thus permit another to stay at home; and this would be the greatest possible love that we could show to our neighbor, that we would be willing to give our life, if need be, to save his.
But few would be willing to do this, and Paul says: “Shall we do evil that good may come?
God forbid.”
And government does not require any thing that we cannot do with a good conscience.
It may be urged that we are in this way assuming a dangerous position.
There is no danger in submitting to law, but there is danger in breaking the law.
If, we trusting in God, our only hope and our strong tower, and in patience possessing our souls, when the draft takes place, are willing to pay our commutation fee, then we are submitting to the law exactly, doing just as the law provides and directs; if we take any other course we are not submitting to this law, and are very liable to take steps which might preclude us from the benefits of it afterwards.
Oh, let us be very careful to keep ourselves consistently non-resistant!
Again it is said; Some are not able to pay, and others are not willing to pay so much.
Among most of the congregations where drafts have taken place, the brethren have contributed towards helping each other pay their commutation fees, and this is the proper way.
I have now given my views plainly, I may be mistaken and have formed incorrect conclusions.
All that I ask is that we may all read carefully and pray earnestly for wisdom and strength to understand rightly, to act wisely and keep a conscience void of offences.
“Prove all things, hold fast that which is right and good.[”]
This was followed by an article that urged Mennonites to form mutual aid accounts to help pay the commutation fines for conscripted Mennonites who are too poor (or who come from congregations that are too poor) to pay them themselves.
This is the second in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
The American Civil War had prompted Mennonites to make more explicit and
precise the contours of their “nonresistant” conscientious objection policy.
In the post-war years, in the pages of The Herald of
Truth (Gospel Herald’s predecessor), they
continue to articulate this.
The edition, under the title
“An
Appropriate Address” quoted an “address… said to have been sent by the
society of the Mennonites in Lancaster
Co.,
Pa., to John Penn,
Governor of that state, on ” and advised: “Let us imitate their example.” The quoted address
explained that Mennonites could not take up arms, but:
As Christ commanded Peter to pay tribute to Caesar, so shall we always pay our
taxes.
An
anonymous author wrote, in the issue, about whether it would be “consistent with the principles of
non-resistance to buy substitutes and send them into the army”:
If… such things [as war] are repulsive and sinful to me (as they are to the
true Christian), how can I conscientiously and willingly pay a substitute and
send him to do these things? for, by so doing, I would also make myself a
partaker in such wickedness and help to promote the same.
When a news report suggested that a new Mennonite sect in Europe was
promulgating anarchistic views, the Herald of Truth
editor
set
the record straight about Mennonites’ willingness to pay taxes
():
A New Sect.
A new order of the Mennonite sect is gaining ground in Hungary to an extent
that threatens considerable embarrassment to the Aduninistration. These
so-called Nazarenes not only disown all clerical organizations and refuse to
take any oath or enter any military service, but they dispute the lawfulness
of taxes that go to support a State, Church or army. All assessments made on
them are therefore levied on protest. They are said to be an offshoot of
Calvinism, but have of late been largely recruited from among the working
Catholic population, so that their numbers, estimated a few years since at
6,000 only, are now officially stated at 30,000, and said to be really much
larger.
The above item we find in an exchange, but cannot endorse the fact that they
belong to the Mennonite sect. The Mennonites never resist the authority of
government; they respect governments as ordained of God, and as Jesus directed
Peter to go and get a piece of money which he should find in the mouth of a
fish, Matt. 17:27,
to pay for their taxes, in order to avoid offense, without asking any
questions as to what would be done with the money so paid, and with the full
consciousness that he was not even subject to tribute. So the Mennonites hold
that it is their duty to meet all the demands of government, and to pay
tribute or taxes to whom they are due, and whosoever assumes to protest
against and act in opposition to this doctrine, which the Savior and the
apostles taught, contradicts and opposes the faith of the Mennonites, and
consequently cannot claim to be acknowledged as a Mennonite. Calvinism is
another doctrine which does not in any manner coincide with the “free grace
principles” always taught and cherished by the Mennonite church.
They do, however, decline most decidedly to perform military service, and
could in no wise maintain institutions to promote war and bloodshed, or to
repel any demands made upon them by force or violence.
Another circumstance disposed the famous Turenne [Henri de La Tour
d’Auvergne?] favorably towards the Mennonites.
M. Van Buenig, the
Dutch Ambassador, was in a carriage one day with Turenne, who blamed the
States for “tolerating Anabaptists.” The former defended them as excellent
citizens. There was no fear, he said, of a revolt, with a weaponless people.
What repose of mind this gave to a Sovereign! They paid their taxes without
any trouble, and with these taxes he paid his troops… Instead of dissipating
their property in luxury and riot they strengthened the State by their steady
labor.
…[T]he Russian Government seems to be awaking to the fact that the Mennonites
and other dissenters are not and never have been detrimental to the best
interests of the country, that they are in fact among the most loyal subjects
in all the empire, paying their taxes, living in peace and quietness, with no
thought of doing anything to injure the Government.
The first hint of broader war tax resistance thinking (beyond the “no hiring
substitutes” level) that I found was in the edition, which reprinted a sermon delivered
by Menno Simon Steiner
during the Spanish-American war, titled
“The
Christian’s Duty in Times of War and to Spain”:
We build ourselves pleasant homes, help our children to nice homes, hoard up
money, keep a tight grip on our pocketbooks, and have as a Christian people
and nation done comparatively nothing for the cause of Christ in foreign
lands. I accuse myself for not having done more, and now God has permitted
this war to be and we pay into the treasury of the United States in taxes,
revenue, tariff, and stamps what we ought long ago to have given into the
treasury of the Lord.
But a war tax resistance interpretation of this passage in context is a bit of
a stretch. Steiner seems mostly to be saying that Mennonites ought to have been
spending more resources on converting the Cubans to Christianity in the hopes
of averting such a war. If Mennonites had invaded Cuba and the Phillipines
first, with an army of nonviolent missionaries, they could have headed off such
a later military intervention.
Finally, here’s a typical
war-is-bad
but taxes-are-good expression found in an anonymous letter-to-the-editor
from :
Bro.
Geo. R. Brunk has preached
twice for the Spring Valley congregation on the subject of non-resistance. One
man present at these meetings said such sermons ought to be preached oftener
and the Gospel given in the way it was by
Bro. Brunk, in every city and
village in the country, to show that Christians will not fight and kill their
fellowmen. The apostle Paul says, “Be subject to the powers that be,” but in
the same chapter he warns us not to kill anybody — “Thou shalt not kill.” Rom. 13:9.
To pay tribute or taxes seems allowable in
this chapter,
but not to kill any one.
This is the third in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
As the new century began, J.K. Zook explained the proper relationship between
church and state in his article
“The Law and
the Gospel”.
In Zook’s reading, which seemed very much in the Mennonite mainstream, the Old
Testament described a theocratic order in which the church and state were
tightly linked. The New Testament, however, broke this bond. Christians should
not expect worldly governments to follow the rules of human behavior set down
in Jesus’s teachings — such governments at best might uphold the “Old Law”
which is meant “to govern the natural man to which all civilized nations at
least are amenable.” The gospel is designed to govern “the spiritual man in the
church of Christ.” So, while Christians must return good for evil, governments
should still be expected to return evil for evil under the old eye-for-an-eye
code, and should not be held to the Christian standard, even by Christians.
Zook then reiterates the lessons from Romans 13:
Therefore let every soul be subject to such as are under control of God’s
appointed ministers to protect the righteous and with the sword to avenge His
wrath, as He has in all past ages upon nations by nations, for their
intolerable wickedness…
…Horrible as war may seem, yet it is the Christian’s positive duty to ask for
them [His ministers who bear the sword] the blessings from heaven, and
cheerfully contribute their allotted temporal portion of tax, custom, and all
dues required whatever to support the government in executing God’s will.
Over several issues of Gospel Witness in
,
C.H. Smith
covered the history of the Anabaptists (of which the Mennonites are one
branch). I found these excerpts about early divisions between tax resisting and
tax paying branches interesting:
Bullinger in his work on the Anabaptists mentions no less than forty sects in
his time under that name. Among the most prominent are… 6. “The Free
Brethren.” They were shunned by most of the others. They made the spiritual
freedom a freedom of the flesh. They owed no tithes, taxes, and opposed
slavery. Entered all sorts of disgraces. Had property and women in common.
They taught that a Christian must hate all that might belong to him, even wife
and child.
Of government there was no need by the Christian. It was a necessity, but only
for the unrighteous. This is the view found in most of the confessions of
faith issued by the large assemblages of the leaders as at Schleithem
. This was the non-resistant attitude, held
by the majority of the Swiss. Government was a necessity, was divinely
ordained to punish the wicked and reward the righteous. A Christian, however,
could not become a magistrate, although he must render obedience and pay his
just taxes. He could not take up the sword to kill even at the call of his
country. He could not take the oath. Christ taught him to say Yea, Yea; Nay,
Nay.
Bullinger includes the attitude of non-resistance in his long list of things
held in common by the large majority of Anabaptists. There were, however, two
other well defined views regarding Civil Government; the one represented by
Hubmeier and the other by John of Leyden. The former believed in government,
paid all taxes, and obeyed all its ordinances that did not interfere with the
free exercise of religion. It was proper to use the sword outside of
persecution. The latter believed in the establishing of Christ’s Kingdom by
the sword at the cost of sedition and revolution.
The refusal to pay tithes and taxes on the part of the more radical, had its
germ in the teaching of the more conservative, many of whom taught that they
really owed nothing to the government, but paid taxes simply to escape
persecution. Stumpf, one of the early founders, and Grebel told Zwingli that
they desired to found a church which should be made up of truly converted
Christians who would live righteously, cling to the Gospel, and who should not
be burdened with taxes or other usury.
J.S. Hartzler’s
“Scriptural Gems for Daily Meditation”, in the
edition, hinted that there
might be some tax resisters in the flock who needed correcting:
Occasionally we find people who are so over-conscientious that they want
nothing to do with the laws of the land and in fact, but little with those who
carry them out, at the same time they question whether it is right for them to
pay taxes under certain circumstances, but they are ready to speak harshly of
their rulers and dwell long and loudly on their corrupting influences. This is
wrong. I have no right to withhold any of the taxes due to my country,
(Rom. 13:6,7)
nor to speak evil of its rulers,
(Acts 23:5)
but to honor them
(1 Pet. 2:17)
and pray for them,
(1 Tim. 2:2).
He who prays as he should will have no evil to say of his rulers.
A typical, though not universal, position among Mennonites was to refrain from
voting in political elections, under the view that Christians belonged rightly
to one of the “two kingdoms,” and politics to the other. Here is an interesting
example of a Mennonite (Benjamin Weaver) trying to undermine this reluctance to vote
(in this case, so that Mennonites could vote for alcohol prohibition):
An article in the
quoted from a Schwenkfelders resolution issued during the American Revolution
to the effect that they pledged to “carry in common and help each other to
carry all fines in money that may be imposed on any of them or of their
children on account of their refusal through conscientious scruples to render
personal service in the war…”
In , representatives of the
Swiss Brethren (immediate ancestors of the American Old Mennonite Church) met
with their counterparts from the Zwinglian church (the state church) to haggle
over theology. The edition of
Gospel Herald reprinted
some of the Brethren’s talking points from that discussion,
including this one:
Of taxes and tribute. The Brethren said, “We have never taught that
interest, tithes, tribute, taxes,
etc., and
whatsoever one owes, should not be paid… If any one among us should be found
disobedient in regard to this duty and the government visited him with
punishment, we could not object. We have willingly rendered to this and other
governments what we owed, and any one of like faith with us, who would not do
so, we would not tolerate it nor let him be unpunished… To refuse taxes to the
government would be against God, and if we would do such things, we were of
the evil one.”
Not much had changed by the early twentieth century. In reporting on an
“Annual Bible Conference” held in , the Gospel Herald summarized one of the
topics — “Christians’ Relation to the Government” — as follows:
Christians should render obedience to, pay taxes to, not speak evil of, and to
pray for, the government. Christians should not go to law nor to war, but
rather appeal to the Church to settle difficulties, using the Word of God as
their weapon.
Finally, a historical note from the edition, which reprinted
a
petition from Pennsylvania
Mennonites to their state House of Assembly, which explained their
conscientious objection to military service, and said in part:
We are always ready according to Christ’s command to Peter to pay tribute that
we may offend no man and so we are willing to pay taxes and render unto Ceasar
[sic] those things that are Ceasar’s, and to God those things
that are God’s although we think ourselves very weak to give God His due
honor, He being a Spirit and Life and we being dust and ashes.
The petition also mentions that it was accompanied by a “small gift which we
have given… to those who have power over us that we may not offend them
as Christ taught us by the tribute penny.”
This is the fourth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
World War Ⅰ was another opportunity for Mennonites to refine their doctrines concerning nonresistance and conscientious objection.
When I went over the back issues of The Mennonite, I noted that from the looks of it, the General Conference Mennonite Church was utterly unconcerned about the implications of buying “Liberty Loan” war bonds, even as I knew from prior research that there were many examples of American Mennonites who were persecuted for refusing to buy such bonds.
I was eager to learn whether the Mennonite Church, at least as represented in Gospel Herald, would be different in this regard.
As it turns out, the two magazines were as different as night and day.
Read on:
An article on “War Problems for Nonresistant People” in the edition discussed the nuanced differences between conscientious objection to bearing arms in the military, to non-combatant military service, and to civilian support for the military by such means as paying taxes.
Excerpt:
Our objection to noncombatant service is not against the humanitarian work [such as service in military hospitals] but against the matter of serving as a part of the system the avowed aim of which is to kill and to cripple before there is any work for the surgeon and the nurse to do.
What is the difference between paying taxes and raising food for the support of the army and supporting it in noncombatant military service?
No difference at all — if that is your purpose in paying taxes and raising crops.
But if, as nonresistant people usually do, you pay your taxes in accordance with the command to pay tribute to whom tribute is due and cultivate your farm that you may have something to provide for your own or care for the needy or help evangelize the world, there is as much difference between that and noncombatant service as there is between day and night.
Beware of Fakirs. — Word reaches us that in certain quarters there were men around trying to compel people to buy “liberty bonds” by making them believe that the law made such purchase compulsory.
Such misrepresentation is enough to arouse suspicion.
If they misrepresent one point, what assurance have you that they represent the government at all and that their object is not to pocket the money and give you a worthless paper instead.
There is no law which dictates to any man how he should invest his money.
Whether it is conscience, lack of funds, or disinclination to invest that keeps you from investing in these bonds, it is your privilege to do as you think best.
Whatever may be the business of any agent soliciting your patronage, be sure that he carries proper credentials.
And in the investment of your means don’t fail to apply the scriptural injunction “Whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.”
Olivia G. Honderich penned an article on “The Sin of Indifference” for the edition in which she struggled to find the appropriate boundary for a conscientious objector to war, particularly when it comes to taxpaying:
The live question of the hour to us seems to be, How can I best obey the Bible injunction, “Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you?”
Some say to be strictly nonresistant we must do this, others say we must do that.
Is not the question rather one of the motive, in this instance, than of the deed?
To be strictly out of all work that lends aid to our armies, we must either be helpless invalids or else engaged in some mental or moral occupation and hopeless paupers.
Our tax money helps, our farm produce is a big factor in the proposition; in fact, we can scarcely live a normal, active life and not be a factor in the war proposition, even though we do not so intend to be.
[E]very citizen of the U.S. is called to do his part, and must do it, in support of our armies at the front.
Not one of us can escape war service in some form or another.
We must work to live and so we pay our tithes to the government whether we mean to do so or not.
The Scriptures teach that Christ’s followers should render therefore “to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom;” “not only for wrath, but for conscience’ sake.”
We are not to “despise governments.”
When Jesus was asked, “Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not” He answered, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
…If, by the payment of taxes and being engaged in agricultural pursuits we become responsible for having part in the war, then God bears responsibility for this war.
Does He not send the rain and sunshine by which this earth is made fruitful and the human family is fed?
We need to produce the necessaries of life, not only for ourselves, but for others who will have need and cannot be producers.
There is a civil population of our own country — the working man and his family — and unless food becomes more plentiful prices will continue to advance until they will be beyond the reach of the common population.
Thousands of exiles destitute and paupers in Europe and Armenia, who have been driven from their homes with no earning power, need to be supplied with food.
How shall they be helped?
To continue in the peaceful pursuits of life cannot be wrong when by so doing we are supplying the necessities of life for ourselves and our fellowmen.
We hold that to become a party to wage carnal warfare, regardless of the kind of service we are asked to perform, we are guilty of violating the principle of nonresistance as taught by our Savior and His apostles.
A man cannot become a willing partner in business, crime or other association, without assuming full responsibility for what the other fellow does.
We do not mean to say that certain service, such as hospital, etc., is the same as killing men, but the principle that involves me, by willing association with and aid to those who do the killing, would morally bind me and I would share responsibility with them.
Even so in the case of war, I would share responsibility with those who bear arms and kill, even though I performed such service only that I was not required to bear arms but was necessary to the prosecution of the war.
Daniel Kauffman (who was by this time the editor of Gospel Herald, and as much as anyone expressed the orthodoxy of the Mennonite Church) wrote about “The Mennonite Church and the Present War” for the issue.
He also took the tack that taxes were different from voluntary contributions when it came to complicity in war funding:
It is one thing to make voluntary contributions to help win the war, and quite another thing, in submission to the powers that be, to submit to any levy of taxes or confiscation of property that may be imposed upon us by state or nation.
The President has so far honored our faith that he has already declared that we shall be exempted from what he designates “combatant service” and it is not likely that we as a people will be called upon to violate in any form the principles for which we stand.
In order to show our gratitude to government for this privilege some have suggested that we offer to assist the government financially in the form of helping to pay war bills, buy liberty bonds, etc.; but in my estimation this would be but an indirect method of helping to “win the war” and we would become a part of the great military machine.
Jonas S. Hartzler would later write the book Mennonites in the World War, or Nonresistance Under Test in which he described instances of mobs who attacked Mennonites who refused to buy war bonds.
In the edition of Gospel Herald he promoted a sort of passive resistance to military taxation (through reducing taxable transactions).
This was the first time I’d seen the notion expressed in the Gospel Herald that Mennonites ought to critically examine the taxes they pay because of the military spending such taxes fund, and should respond by trying to reduce those taxes out of pacifist motives:
How much will you pay in taxes, duties, and extra prices for necessities in which money will be used directly to help on the war?
In some of these things you have no other recourse, nor should you try to evade them except as you can do so through careful economy.
Does the Lord not have reason to expect just as much from you (yea, more) fully as much to carry on His work as you are giving to further the destruction of human life which is a direct violation of the Sacred Scriptures?
Will you willfully do less than the Lord expects of you?
With this staring you in the face, will you cling to your money and still continue to say, “Lord, Lord?”
An uncredited short editorial (probably therefore the work of editor Daniel Kauffman) in the described some of the pressure “bond slackers” were subject to:
A brother was approached recently about the sale of “liberty bonds.”
He tried as best he could to give the nonresistant position with reference to the support of war.
The solicitor wanted to know what he would do if he were forced to buy them.
The brother replied that if the money were forced from him he would not resist; that in case the government saw fit to do this and afterwards offered to return the money he did not see any wrong in accepting the return of the money but thought it wrong to take any interest for money taken for such purposes.
The brother had the true conception of the proper attitude of nonresistant people.
Our prayers continue to ascend, however, that soon the powers that be may recognize our convictions with reference to war and acknowledge in full our liberty of conscience.
An uncredited essay (probably also Kauffman’s work) in the issue tried to turn on its head one criticism of Mennonite conscientious objection: that Mennonites were hypocrites for refusing to support the war effort by enlisting while they continued to support it by paying taxes and through agriculture.
If this is true, he wrote, then why complain in the first place that Mennonites aren’t doing their part?:
Our critics… talk about the inconsistency of withholding all support of war measures when at the same time we pay taxes and raise crops — and thereby convict themselves when they charge that we are doing nothing in return for governmental protection and prove their insincerity when they refuse to recognize that we have not been lacking in effort to provide necessities and relief for suffering humanity through we decline to support war.
Approached by the Government with the request that they buy Liberty Loan Bonds, the Russian Mennonites of the Canadian Northwest declined to do this, but agreed to make a contribution to the Red Cross work.
In fifteen congregations the recent donations to this form of relief work amounted to $13,654.55. This shows what may be done with but a little effort.
In the States our people have not seen fit to support the Red Cross work as a body because of its close affiliation with the military.
But the work of war sufferers’ relief is entirely free from this objection and our people should readily embrace the opportunity to prove their willingness to help the cause of suffering humanity.
That issue also carried a story, about A.D. Wenger’s visit to conscripted conscientious objectors at Camp Lee, that The Mennonite borrowed (I described some of that story in ♇ 6 July 2018 when I was going through back issues of The Mennonite).
John L. Stauffer shared his “Reflections Caused by Present War Experiences” in the issue, and was unusually strong in taking to task Mennonites who were willing to purchase war bonds.
Excerpts:
The Money Question
“Nothing goes without money,” is a current saying.
Especially is this noticeable in the present vast expenditures of the nations of the world.
The missionary work of the apostle Paul needed funds and yet many people in these days seem to think that the Lord’s work will run on its reputation.
Wealth has been accumulating on every hand.
God has been prospering, especially this country, but contributions to the Lord’s cause have not correspondingly increased.
Wealth that is in excess of actual needs is rusting according to James 5 and will bring down the just judgment of God upon the holder.
Many Scriptural references show the folly of riches.
Hoarded wealth will net a heavy tax to the government.
It seems that many are seeking to evade this by investing in Liberty Bonds as they will be free of taxation.
Recently a workman in the shops was loud in his denunciation of Mennonites who refused to fight and yet purchased government bonds.
He said, “They’re not consistent.”
He thought it did not seem fair that the people who could not conscientiously assist in the prosecution of this terrible war and destruction of human life, could still loan their money to the Government at 3½ or 4 per cent. interest when the money is invested in manufacturing and maintaining the necessary accessories to taking human life, making children fatherless, women husbandless and widows.
A member of the Church would come into disrepute if he loaned his money to a saloonkeeper or rented a building for the operation of a saloon, yet some members have been known to have invested in the greatest war of the world and draw interest from that source.
Note that you wouldn’t know from reading The Mennonite that Mennonites had any issues with buying war bonds at all.
So there was a very stark divide on this question between the two magazines.
To the present time the churches have not seen fit to purchase Liberty Loan Bonds.
We can not consistently take part in the military service of the country and be true to the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.
We can not send our boys to the trenches, the ammunition plants nor any other services which contributes directly to the killing of our fellowmen.
The principle of non-resistance is fundamental in Christian faith and can not be denied by the church if we would live.
But we are called “slackers,” because of religious convictions, we refuse to go to the trenches, buy Liberty Bonds, etc.…
Every member of the church should do more than a soldier on the firing line.
We should do more than buy Liberty Bonds.
We must do more than simply contribute to the Red Cross fund.
We must go the “second mile,” and as a church we must do more toward relief and reconstruction than can possibly be done through military avenues.
If the church will start something soon we can relieve the anxiety of hundreds of brethren who are sure to do something.
Some brethren have purchased Liberty Bonds because they felt it the best and only way to make contributions at this time.
If the church will start something soon we can have both money and men and the world will have no occasion to point the finger at us and say “Slacker.”
Brethren, whether the term “slacker” as applied to nonresistant people be just or unjust let us be up and doing.
Let us not content ourselves in walking with the “be good” fellows who passed by the man who fell among thieves.
Let us join hearts and hands with the “do good” man who came with oil and wine and carried the half dead man to the hotel and paid all his doctor bills.
The good Samaritan was non-resistant but he did a service which the world shall never forget.
No people on earth are in better position to do a similar service just now than are the Mennonites.
In the issue, John H. Mosemann wrote about the difficulty in finding ways to donate or invest money in ways that would be helpful to sufferers during the war without also aiding the prosecution of the war:
Our Church has been approached again and again from various angles with strong and determined effort to have her take part in some way in the greatest slaughter of human lives ever recorded in history.
Individuals here and there among us, for the sake of friendship with the world, love of fame, safe investment of money, etc., have yielded, seeking to do a “little” evil that “much” good may come.
Since the Church has tenaciously clung to her Lord and His Word conscientiously refusing any compromise to assist or lend encouragement to war in any form she has been looked upon as being stingy, miserly, unpatriotic, slackers, etc., by such who are of the worldly kingdom and some also who are professors of the religion of Jesus Christ.
It was necessary in order to maintain consistency with the teaching of Christ and the Apostles on the doctrine of nonresistance to hold aloof from buying “Liberty Bonds,” Red Cross Work, Y.M.C.A. Hut Fund, all of which has been found to be a part of the war machinery.
(The writer himself gave to the Red Cross fund, not thinking that it was a part of the war machinery for the furtherance and successful prosecution of the war.)
An unsigned editorial (likely Daniel Kauffman again) in the issue also addressed that theme:
We are under pressure to do many things in support of war which as believers in nonresistance we can not conscientiously or consistently do…
While those who favor the support of war are purchasing liberty bonds and contributing to such organizations as army Y.M.C.A., Knights of Columbus, Red Cross, etc., let us be equally zealous in our support of work along lines which we can conscientiously endorse.
Let us not forget the principal object of our contributions.
While it will be convenient to be able to say to the next government solicitor that comes around that we are giving more to the cause of relief for the needy than most people in similar financial circumstances who have no conscientious scruples against war are contributing towards war support, that is simply incidental.
Our giving should be out of a heart overflowing with sympathy for suffering humanity and our reward looked for “at the resurrection of the just.”
“As every one purposeth in his heart, so let him give.”
Another unsigned editorial
in the issue tried to walk the fine line — Mennonites want to support the government, perhaps even more during wartime when the government faces such challenges, but they are unwilling to support the government’s war effort itself in any way.
The writer also urged Mennonites to draw that line in the sand and defend it, as compromise could end up eroding conscientious objection entirely:
There are many things we may do with a clear conscience, and these duties we should not hesitate to perform.
The nonresistant attitude on war is this: Since we have no part in war, we can not consistently have any part in support of war.
At the present time this is expressed in the phrase, “no service under the military establishment.”
But this does not mean that we have no obligations to government or no increased burden because of the world’s great suffering brought on by war.
If we can not serve under the military establishment, there are other ways in which we may serve, if called upon.
If we can not subscribe to the Red Cross while that organization is enlisted in the work of the war, we can contribute to relief work in other lines.
If we can not subscribe for liberty bonds, we can subscribe for farm loan bonds or other government bonds not floated in support of war measures.
Compromise means later disaster or surrender.
A generation ago many of the Mennonites accepted noncombatant military service as a compromise to satisfy the government.
Today their sons are at the front, killing and being killed.
This war is perhaps the first war in history in which there were Mennonites on opposite sides.
The paramount question is not “noncombatant service,” “liberty bonds,” “Red Cross,” or any other side issue mentioned in the present struggle, but Shall we as followers of the Prince of Peace have any part in carnal warfare?
To compromise on any of these side issues means to surrender the whole question later on.
Militarists make no secret of their position that all these things are a part of the grand scheme of destructive warfare — except when in the work of winning over nonresistant people step by step.
Keep straight o.n the entire nonresistant program — no military service, combatant or noncombatant; no part in the support of any war measures — if you mean to preserve for yourself and your posterity the precious faith for which thousands of our forefathers gave their lives.
But, says some one, shall we invite persecution by refusing to do what we are asked to do?
No; don’t “invite” persecution, but stand by your convictions, whether that brings persecution or not.
We say, “God bless you, stand firm,” when our boys in camp meekly but firmly take their stand against military service.
And should not we outside the camp do the same thing?
In the end you will fare better if you stand by your convictions and suffer for it than if you keep on giving way bit by bit until you see that you must stop compromising or surrender the whole nonresistant ground.
Then you will face the alternative of either suffering worse than you would have done had you remained firm from the beginning or of surrendering your nonresistant faith entirely.
Better keep a clear conscience, make a clear record, and save a clear faith for yourself and your posterity.
Imperfect man is liable to err.
Sometimes our overseers are asked, “What are you going to do with the boys who accept noncombatant service? or the man who buys liberty bonds? or the member who does other things not according to the nonresistant faith?”
The faithful overseer invariably replies, in substance: “We mean to help every one in trouble.”
These are trying times.
Many have done things they ought not to have done because they were intimidated, or misinformed, or compelled to act unwittingly on the spur of the moment.
They need sympathetic help rather than censure.
It is not so much a question, What did they do under circumstances when they were not normal? as, What will be their attitude after they come to themselves and will have time for sober reflections?
Here is the practical point: If you find yourself in error, arm yourself for the next test, that you may be able to stand.
One attempt to find a way for Mennonites to contribute to the common cause along with their neighbors, without contributing to the cause of bloodletting, was with “Farm Loan Bonds” — like Liberty Bonds, these were loans of money to the government, but they were not as obviously connected with the war effort.
Here is how this was described in the Gospel Herald:
Farm Loan Bonds.
Several weeks ago Bro. [Aaron] Loucks sent out several hundred circular letters to about as many brethren, discussing some of the problems of the war, and asking the judgment of the brethren in the matter of purchasing Farm Loan Bonds — something that would aid the Government fully as much as the purchase of Liberty Loan Bonds would, and something that nonresistant people could consistently do without feeling that in so doing they would have a direct part in aiding and abetting war.
The response to this letter has been quite free, the brethren from all sections manifesting a unity of spirit and purpose similar to that manifested at our General Conference .
Following is a sample letter, giving an idea of what many of our brethren are thinking about and how they feel:
Dear Brother Loucks: — I am in full harmony with your suggestion for our people to buy Land Bank Bonds to help the U.S. Treasury.
I think every congregation should appoint a committee to see that food laws are observed, that War Relief Fund is properly supported, that Land Bank Bonds are bought by those able, that all are encouraged to not break over in violation of the nonresistant faith.
⁂ Put it up to the people through the Gospel Herald.
The Mission Board discussed this option at their annual board meeting on , and the Gospel Herald reported:
A special meeting of the Bishops present was held during an intermission and the following resolution was prepared and submitted to this meeting.
It was unanimously accepted.
Recognizing in the Farm Loan Bonds an opportunity for our people to aid the Government in a financial way without violating the principles of the non-resistant faith, we recommend that, in addition to generously supporting the War Relief work, through the Mennonite Relief Commission for War Sufferers, those of our people who are financially able to do so, invest in these Bonds, and that Aaron Loucks prepare a circular of information, and instructions to send to the various congregations.
The Eastern Amish Mennonite Conference met on and considered their own plan:
Mr. Crooks of Columbus, Ohio, gave a talk on the advisability of our members availing themselves of the opportunity of the Bank Loan System of Liberty Bonds, after which the following was passed: “The plan submitted to the Eastern A.M. Conference by Mr. Crooks, a representative of the Fourth National Bank, Cleveland, Ohio, by which our brethren would be permitted to loan money to their Local Banks in lieu of Liberty Loan Bonds.
We respectfully submit the following resolution by the above representation:—
Resolved, that since the above plan was favorably received, yet because the proposition was new to most of the congregations represented by this Conference, a committee of three be appointed to take up the matter with our local congregations, and representatives of sister conferences and the General Conference and report within 30 days.
An unsigned editorial
in the issue tried to sum up the latest thinking on how Mennonites ought to respond to the demands placed on them to cooperate with the war effort.
Here are some excerpts that touch on war bonds and other such financial support:
It has been the editor’s privilege to spend the past two weeks in fellowship with his brethren from many fields in a prayerful effort to help solve some of the problems confronting us as a people… As near as we were able to comprehend what was in the minds of our brethren concerning the war situation it may be summarized as follows:
That the withholding of our support from such war measures as Liberty Loan Bonds, Thrift Stamps, War Chests, etc., is based upon the same convictions [“that such… would be bearing the noncombatant end of an organized effort to take human life and overcome the enemy by means of violence — a service that nonresistant people can not consistently render”].
That nonresistant people may consistently purchase Farm Loan Bonds or any other government bonds floated in support of a cause which we can conscientiously support.
That the purpose of such purchases, is not (or ought not to be) to “do our bit” in an indirect support of war but to lend our mite in supporting our government in a cause which we can endorse without doing violence to our convictions of right and wrong.
That for nonresistant people to go against their convictions and lend support to any war measures is a surrender and a compromise which would eventually end in a surrender of the entire nonresistant ground.
That our danger is not in a complete surrender of the whole ground, but a giving away bit by bit until there is nothing left worth standing for.
It’s hard to overstate how much more thoughtful this is than anything I could find coming out of the General Conference Mennonite Church at this time.
Owing to the critical condition brought to bear upon the church because of our nonresistant principles, a plan was submitted wherein our brethren would be privileged to loan money to their local banks to be used for local purposes in lieu of buying liberty bonds, the following resolution was submitted: Resolved, that since the plan submitted in no way involves a violation of any principle of our faith, we commend the plan, and that a committee of three be appointed to co-operate with other committees appointed in further developing the plan.
Bro. Aaron Loucks of Scottdale, Pa. gave a plan of depositing money in the local banks for local use in lieu of the purchase of Liberty Bonds.
Conference passed the following:
Whereas a plan has been submitted to our brethren and acted upon by several of our sister conferences whereby our brethren would be privileged to loan money to local banks for local use only in lieu of purchasing Liberty Bonds, be it,
Resolved, That a committee of three of which Bro. D[aniel].
D. Miller shall be one, be appointed to work conjointly with brethren appointed by other conferences to work out the details of said plan, or to find a better plan and submit their findings to the brotherhood of this conference as soon as possible.
Decided that the moderator appoint other two.
Brethren S.S. Yoder and J[onas].S. Hartzler were appointed.
That Brethren Aaron Loucks and Daniel Kauffman be appointed a committee to correspond with Mr. Crooks of Westerville, Ohio, and such others as may be deemed advisable, relative to a proposed plan whereby Mennonites may aid the government by loaning money to local banks for local purposes in lieu of buying Liberty Bonds; and that the information they receive be given to the committees appointed by the different conferences on this subject.
Many of our people have been waiting for a circular of information concerning Farm Loan Bonds, which Bro. Aaron Loucks prepared some time ago.
These are times of fleeting changes.
About the time this circular was completed it developed that the plan would not work as satisfactory as had been hoped for, and another proposition whereby we might loan money to local banks was submitted by a government official to the Eastern A.M. Conference.
This proposition has been taken under advisement and a committee appointed by representatives of the Eastern A.M. Conference, the Illinois Conference, and the Indiana-Michigan Conference is working on a plan which they hope will be more satisfactory than that of the Farm Loan Bonds.
As soon as these plans have been perfected the committee wishes to submit its work to our people for their consideration.
We will likely hear from this committee within the next two weeks.
In the meantime let us remember this committee and its work before the Throne.
[Every minister should feel himself divinely called upon… t]o give his congregation faithful instruction as to what is the nonresistant’s consistent attitude toward such war measures as Liberty Loan Bonds, Thrift Stamps, War Chests, etc.
Lest some one should give this a twist and read into it a meaning which was not intended to be put into it, we might explain that we are emphatically against any active, open, defiant attitude of opposition toward any government enterprise.
We are totally out of sympathy with the attitude of I.W.W.’s and kindred organizations whose opposition to the present war is backed up by war-like resistance.
“The servant of the Lord must not strive.”
We should at all times maintain a submissive attitude toward government even if it is to submit peacefully to any punishment that may be meted to us because our understanding of God’s Word will not allow us to comply with the directions of Government with reference to military service, combatant or noncombatant.
But in these trying times there are many perplexing questions that arise, and our members have a right to expect that their leaders throw some Gospel light on these problems by giving faithful instructions concerning each issue as it arises.
This is a right that is conceded by all intelligent people, both inside the Church and out of it.
It is a duty which no minister should neglect.
[W]hen a person is truly nonresistant in heart and life it does not take a master mind to understand that if it is wrong to fight it is also wrong to encourage or help others to fight.
People who profess nonresistance but at the same time declare it their duty to “do their bit” in the support of war by means of money contributions or of noncombatant service are either misled or insincere.
A… waste of energy is going on… in an endeavor to force nonresistant people to support such war measures as Liberty Loan Bonds, War Chests, etc. We are not discussing the merits or demerits of the nonresistant position with reference to these matters.
But recognizing conditions as they are, we raise the question as to whether it would not be the part of wisdom to look for a solution of present problems in a way that would provide for a service on the part of all men along lines which they can conscientiously render.
Let us view this matter from a constructive business standpoint.… Would it not be better to come to an understanding with “conscientious objectors” whereby they may invest their money in a way which their conscience approves and at the same time be of service to their nation and humanity in general, rather than to try to force them to violate their conscience in the support of enterprises in which they feel they should have no part?
— In other words, would it not be the part of wisdom to use conscientious people in a way in which their conscience would be a help rather than a hindrance to their usefulness?
Even if it were possible to force every nonresistant draftee into noncombatant military service and compel every nonresistant man out of camp to support war measures (something which few men believe to be possible) it would be a waste of effort because it would be forcing abnormal conditions, since man is never at his best when compelled to live in violation of his own conscience.
The solution of this problem is not a difficult one, since nonresistant people have never refused to serve, have never asked for easy places, have repeatedly declared their willingness to bear more than their share of the burden resting upon humanity, making the single reservation of being permitted to serve in a capacity which their conscience approves.
So far as the Government and nonresistant people are concerned, all friction could be removed instantly on two conditions:
That the convictions of nonresistant people be fully recognized.
That provisions be made whereby they might make their contributions to causes not connected with the military establishment but equally important to Government — and sufficiently large that no one could reasonably entertain a charge of favoritism.
American Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites were severely tried and tested during World War Ⅰ when the nation was swept up in a wave of patriotic hysteria and intolerance.
This was a time when lack of support or criticism of the war effort, any form of dissent, and all things German were viewed with much intolerance and suspicion.
Especially Mennonites and other Anabaptist sects became objects of severe criticism and harassment.
Their patriotic neighbors could not understand why many Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterite young men did not want to perform military or even noncombatant service.
They were angry when they learned that Mennonites and other nonresistant groups were very reluctant to contribute to the Red Cross, purchase Liberty Bonds, or give to local war chests.
Furthermore, they could not comprehend why Mennonites refused to display the flag at home or in their churches and continued to speak German or some related dialect.
Because of their nonconformist stand and behavior many Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites were harshly treated in military camps or in their local communities.
In the camps many were tortured or ridiculed.
Of those at home some were tarred and feathered or otherwise physically abused.
Considerable abuse.
One who suffered considerable mental and physical abuse was Niles M. Slabaugh, pastor of Howard-Miami Mennonite Church, located about 12 miles northeast of Kokomo, Indiana.
Slabaugh was born in and ordained in .
He served his church until his death in .
Much to the anger of his fellow citizens, Slabaugh, like many other Mennonites, refused to contribute to the Red Cross, purchase Liberty Bonds, or contribute to war chest funds.
That kind of unpatriotic behavior came to the attention of the Loyal Citizens Vigilance Committee of Miami County, which decided to question Slabaugh as well as his brother-in-law, Joseph B. Martin, on .
During World War Ⅰ many local communities established committees to ferret out “unpatriotic” citizens and to ensure “one-hundred percent loyalty.”
In the Vigilance Committee of Miami County counted almost 2,500 members, including some of the most prominent citizens of the area.
Its meetings were well attended, and on , when Slabaugh and Martin were interrogated, “the hall was crowded and every bit of seating capacity used.”
Apparently, Slabaugh offered no resistance when they came to his home, but Martin hid in his bed where members of the Vigilance Committee found him.
Later when Slabaugh was being interrogated Martin jumped up and ran away.
However, he was caught and brought back.
Unlike his brother-in-law, Martin finally agreed to contribute to the war chest.
During the questioning Slabaugh acknowledged he had not contributed to the Red Cross and the local war chest fund, nor purchased savings stamps or liberty bonds.
He admitted he did not want to help the country in the war effort and did not believe in killing human beings.
Instead of violence, Slabaugh suggested prayer as a means of winning the war and bringing the boys home.
Slabaugh’s attitude provoked the anger of the Vigilance Committee as well as the local reporter of The Peru Republican, who concluded that within a few minutes the former had demonstrated Miami County was not the place for him to live.
Yet, surprisingly, the committee allowed Slabaugh to leave.
Slabaugh’s letter.
After the ordeal of , Slabaugh appealed to Aaron Loucks, chairman of the War Problems Committee of the Mennonite Church, for help.
In the letter below he describes his experiences of that fateful day.
(The original spellings and punctuations have not been changed.)
Dear Bro:
I will this evening write you in regard to the way the Miami County Ind. Vigilance Com. is doing and wondering whether it would be possible or advisable for you to bring this before the attention of Secretary Baker at Washington with the hopes he would in some way show his disapproval of the same and also whether it would be possible to have those of our brethren who have been scared into signing the Miami War Chest to become released.
several men came to my home and Joe Martin’s home who is my brother-in-law and demanded that we go with them to Peru our county seat.
We wanted to know why but they said they were U.S. Deputys and showed their Star and demanded that we go with them or they would take us by force so we went and were brought before a mob of about 700 people mostly masked who questioned us inside about an hour asking all kinds of questions regarding our stand in not supporting the war.
I answered as best as I could but they just ridiculed me and finally when I refused to sign the war chest card for conscientious reasons they took me down a dark alley, shook me by the neck called me a damn S. of B., a dirty cur, said I was not even a human and threatened to take my life but I wouldn’t yield so they finally in about two hours sent me home stating that I couldn’t live in the county.
They treated my brother-in-law similarly and finally got him to sign up just because he was scared.
Now they are taking others the same way.
I am satisfied that the U.S. government is not pleased with such outlaws.
Of course they then took parts of our answers and made it sound as though we were working against the U.S. Government.
Please let me know what you think best regarding this.
yours, Niles M. Slabaugh
Newspaper account.
Unfortunately, Slabaugh’s troubles were not over.
On , a group of twelve individuals went to his home to punish and frighten this Mennonite pastor.
This is how The Peru Republican describes the event of that day:
A week or more ago when Nicholas [Niles] Slabaugh was arraigned before the Loyal Citizens’ Vigilance Committee of Miami County he insisted he would do nothing towards helping his Uncle Samuel in winning the war from the Huns.
It will be remembered he said he would let the enemy destroy his home before he would offer any physical assistance.
Slabaugh would have another story to tell had he been interviewed but the alleged slacker citizen was not to be found.
The chances are he will be under cover for a while to come and thereby hangs a story.
Twelve citizens, one-hundred percent loyal, called on said Slabaugh about and putting the story as briefly as possible they acted thusly.
Slabaugh had retired as had the other members of the family.
Slabaugh was taken, partly dressed about twelve miles from his home.
His head and face were shaved and a coat of yellow paint applied to his body.
The manner in which the paint was used would cause one to believe it was the work of an artist and that it was a masterpiece, so skillfully was the job done.
Slabaugh threw himself on his knees and with his hands upraised begged for forgiveness and prayed aloud to be spared the punishment.
Of course no attention was paid to his pleadings.
The captors worked fast and like clockwork.
Last seen of Slabaugh with only an old hat to cover his bald pate he was seen running down the road as fast as his two legs could carry him…
The identity of the masked men could not be learned other than they were loyal citizens and in no way connected with the Vigilance Committee.
It appears the Vigilance Committee is not the only committee looking after Miami’s loyalty.
Aaron Loucks — who was involved in trying to come up with some alternative to Liberty Bonds that would be acceptable to Mennonite consciences and also something that “bond slackers” could point to as their own contributions to the commonwealth as a way of deflecting mob violence — answered some queries at the meeting of the “Committee of War Questions”:
In your investigations what have you found to be the mind of the United
States Treasury Department in regard to the purchase of Liberty Loan Bonds?
The question of finding some method of bearing our share of the burden
in these times of world distress has received prayerful consideration by many of our people.
Several plans have been proposed by which those who could not conscientiously support war measures could contribute to causes which would be a direct help to our Government and to humanity in general and yet would be consistent with their faith.
One of these was to purchase Farm Loan Bonds or other Government Bonds not floated in support of war.
At first the plan was considered with favor both by our people and Government officials, but upon further consideration was not considered feasible.
Next, a Government representative, Mr. W.L. Crooks, submitted to the brethren of Fulton County, Ohio, a plan during the third Liberty Loan drive which gave our people an opportunity to loan money on time deposits to the local banks in lieu of purchasing Liberty Bonds, such money to be used for local purposes only.
This plan seemed to have some advantages over the Farm Loan proposition.
This plan was endorsed by several conferences and committees were appointed to work conjointly with the various other committees and with Mr. Crooks in getting the matter before the proper officials at Washington.
Since that time we have been diligently at work to get this plan, or some other feasible one adopted so that it might be generally accepted.
We were informed that this plan would receive official endorsement by the Treasury Department, but later in direct communication with the Department we were advised by wire that the plan would not be officially endorsed, that, since it is not compulsory to purchase Liberty Loan Bonds, the Treasury Department cannot give any official sanction to such a plan, as this is a matter of private contract between the depositor and the bank.
The Department, however, will not interfere with any arrangements which may be made between congregations or conferences and local institutions or Loan committees.
The situation at present, warrants the following observations:
Up to this time no official arrangements have been made whereby our people may contribute financial aid to the Government, in lieu of supporting War Measures.
L.B. Franklin, Director of the War Loan Organization makes the following statement: “The Treasury Department is strongly opposed to the sale of Bonds by methods not strictly in accordance with the law and does not countenance threats of violence or compulsion of citizens.”
Where there is a question of conscience regarding the support of war measures a meeting may be called to discuss the situation.
If thought advisable a committee may be appointed to confer with the local Liberty Bond Committee and if possible arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to all concerned.
We should always be willing to contribute to causes which we can support in amounts greater than those asked of us for the support of the war.
We should not shrink from hardships or sacrifices, but show that it is wholly a matter of conscience with its.
Let us prove our sincerity.
It should be kept in mind that many persons who have felt they could not consistently “aid or abet war” by investing in securities in direct support of war, are willing to support the Government in other ways such as lending money to local banks, purchasing Farm Loan Bonds, or other measures not directly in support of war.
They have also contributed liberally by donations to War Sufferers Relief.
Donations for the past eight months for this purpose alone were over $165,000.00.
In all cases it is essential that everyone concerned clearly distinguish between persons who act with Government authority and those who do not.
We should ever be ready to obey the requirements of the Government so far as we can conscientiously do so.
We are deeply grateful for the consideration accorded us by those in authority.
However, there may be those who do not appreciate our position, look upon us as disloyal, and therefore feel called upon to resort to threats of violence, and methods of compulsion to bring about their ends.
Not only the Government but all reputable citizens condemn and deplore such methods.
Unpleasantness may in most cases be avoided by coming to a tactful understanding with the local Government authorities, for we believe that when our position is fully understood, our fellow citizens will accord us such respect as will correspond with the high ideals for which our country has always stood.
An unsigned editorial in the issue, titled “War Measures and Nonresistant People”, spelled out what all this meant for Gospel Herald readers in light of the upcoming fourth Liberty Loan drive:
In common with most people, we wish that this subject would never need to be mentioned again.
But we are face to face with living issues, and it behooves us to face them with open eyes and act as intelligently, as wisely, and as scripturally as we know how.
A few weeks more, and we shall be in the midst of the fourth Liberty Loan drive… In response to numerous inquiries concerning the present status of affairs, especially with reference to the question as to whether an agreement has been reached whereby nonresistant people who can not conscientiously support war measures can contribute to other Government enterprises which they may conscientiously support, we submit the following:
So far, all efforts to get official Government sanction to any agreement whereby “conscientious objectors” may have an opportunity to contribute to other Government enterprises not connected with war (in lieu of Liberty Bonds, Thrift Stamps, etc.) have failed.
The position of officials at Washington (if wee have the right conception of their attitude) is as follows: Since there is no law compelling any one to contribute to such war measures as Liberty Bonds, Thrift Stamps, War Chests, etc., there is no ground for any agreement, officially, whereby certain classes may be excused from such contributions.
The Government, however, has put itself on record as “strongly opposed to the sale of bonds by methods not strictly in accordance with the law, and does not countenance threats of violence or compulsion of citizens.”
The Government is not opposed to any local agreement which might be made between local congregations or conferences and officials or committees representing counties or districts which are satisfactory to all concerned.
This means two things: (1) The impressions that gained such widespread credence that people were compelled by law to contribute to these purposes were not in accordance with fact, as the support of these measures has from the start been upon the voluntary basis.
(2) Whatever arrangements are made that will be satisfactory to all concerned must be between local congregations or conferences and local committees or officials, rather than between any Church and the Government at Washington.
Our general attitude before God and man should include two things: (1) a conscientious regard for all truth and loyal obedience to God in all things; (2) a spirit of sacrifice that does not shrink from hardships or self-denial.
Whether it is nonresistance, nonconformity to the world, faithful service, or any thing else that is under consideration, we should know but one thing — to seek and to do God’s will.
“What saith the Scripture?” should settle all questions of right or wrong.
That point settled, there should be no hesitation on our part to do the right.
We should know no other course but to live or die for the faith of the Gospel and hope of eternal salvation.
Sefishness should have no part in our makeup.
Self denial lies at the very gateway of Christian service.
Living in luxury is a sin, especially so in a time like this.
There is no such thing as a “conscientious profiteer” from war conditions, neither can any man in whose heart the love of God abounds live in ease and luxury while millions of his fellow creatures are facing starvation and millions more are dying without the Gospel.
Your attitude as a “conscientious objector” will receive more ready recognition as people see that your voluntary sacrifices are greater than the sacrifices called for in the support of war measures.
These are among the marks of every self-sacrificing child of God: (1) supreme devotion to God and His Word; (2) economy and simplicity; (3) generous contributions to charitable and religious purposes; (4) hard work; (5) no hoarding of wealth; (6) “in honor preferring one another;” (7) the Golden Rule in business.
There should be an early understanding between local congregations or conferences and local communities whereby all bitterness may be avoided as much as possible.
Much of the bitterness which existed in former drives might have been avoided if an amicable understanding could have been reached between nonresistant people and the communities in which they live.
It should be understood, (1) that it is obedience to God and His Word and not selfish desire that prompts nonresistant people to take the stand that they have; (2) that they are not unwilling to bear their full share of the burden imposed upon common humanity, looking only for an understanding providing for an opportunity to contribute to causes which they can conscientiously support; (3) that in former drives many conscientious people yielded to pressure and did what they would not have done if they had not been intimidated; (4) that with the single claim of full recognition of their conscience our people are willing to co-operate with the powers that be in the support of the Government and the uplift of humanity.
While there are some people who can not be reached by reason there are others who can, and to this end all should be done that can be done to reach an understanding that will satisfy all reasonable minds and provide an opportunity for our people to bear their full share of the burden without violation of their own conscience.
Care should be taken that nonresistant people manifest their peace principles in the way they deal with these perplexing problems.
“A soft answer turneth away wrath; but grievous words stir up anger.”
There is a difference between “speaking the truth in love” and “fighting for peace.”
If our judgment disapproves of the course of nations in their efforts to obtain peace, we must not imitate the course which we disapprove.
“The servant of the Lord must not strive.”
With hearts full of love, words softened by the tone of kindness, and hands ready to minister to the wants of the needy, there are many opportunities of showing to the world that nonresistance as the principle of love in action is more than a mere tenet of our faith.
Read
Rom. 12:17–21.
Remember the Espionage Law.
There is nothing in this law that any child of God should dread.
One of the things which our church has always taught is that as “strangers and pilgrims in the earth” we should be submissive to the Government under which we live and should in no way seek to interfere with the enforcement of its laws.
The Espionage Law, therefore, is simply a law which provides for the punishment of people who are guilty of certain things which we have always taught against.
But some have placed a construction on this law which Avould make it a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment for nonresistant people to do that which the Bible commands them to do and which the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees them the right to do.
We are persuaded to believe, however, that in the final test this construction of the law will be declared to be a wrong application of the law and that it was not intended to question any man’s freedom of speech or of religion.
But it is important that we give full consideration to the law, that we may not unwittingly violate it.
While we should never hesitate to obey any of the commandments of God even though obeying it would cost us our liberty or our life, and while we should do our full duty by our people in the way of teaching them the full Gospel and freely giving information which our members seek, we should be careful that we do not unnecessarily offend or violate this or any law of our land.
To surrender to the mob and, for the sake of avoiding persecution, do that which we believe to be wrong, is not only dishonoring God and disobeying His Word, but it encourages mob violence.
It should be borne in mind that this is a question of conscience, a question of duty, a question of right or wrong; not a question of getting through the easiest way or of standing for our “rights.”
There are only two considerations that should prompt us in our actions in this or in any other case: (1) What is the right thing for me to do?
(2) What course may I take in order to accomplish the best possible results?
In other words, duty and results should determine our course of action in everything we do allowing God’s Word rather than expediency to determine our convictions of duty.
In this connection it may be well to notice that the better classes of people deplore and discourage mob violence.
They recognize in the mob the power of anarchy; and while for the time being it may be used in support of a cause which popular opinion approves, no cause is safe and all kinds of outrages are liable to be perpetrated when law and order are set aside to make way for the passions of the mob.
In his timely address denouncing mob violence, President Wilson struck a responsive chord in the hearts of all liberty-loving people, as was shown by the chorus of approval coming from many reputable newspapers as well as religious periodicals, many of which printed the address entire.
Let there be no confusion of issues.
In this connection we hear of some who advise: “Buy Liberty Bonds, and turn these bonds over to some religious or charitable institution or enterprise.
By so doing you will satisfy Government, and at the same time you will be making a contribution to a worthy cause.”
Let us take a good, square look at this advice.
In the first place, let it be understood that in this discussion we are not saying yea or nay to the proposition of buying Liberty Bonds.
What we do say is that that proposition should be decided upon its own merits.
Should you invest?
Do you say, Yes?
Then invest, regardless of what you meant to do with the Bond after you have it.
Do you say, No?
Then the worthy disposition of the Bond has nothing to do with the principles involved in its purchase.
The plea we wish to make at this point is that the issue be not clouded by some other issues that have nothing to do with the principles involved.
Let us keep close to God at all times.
Not only when the trial of our faith is most severe should we keep near to God, but at all times we should have a conscience void of offence toward God and men.
The taking of our cross should be a daily hourly experience.
We should “come boldly unto a throne of grace,” remembering the promise that God will sustain those who cast their burden upon Him.
Though at times we may suffer for conscience’ sake, as millions of others have, yet walking with God in prayerful, faithful, trustful, loyal service, we can hope for but one result: the overcoming life in time and the crown in eternity.
Special provisions were made by the Minister of Finance of Canada granting to “conscientious objectors” the privilege of making their contributions “for relief work only” during the drive for the Government Bonds.
In response to our appeal for a ten thousand dollar building fund which appeared in the issue of the Gospel Herald, one brother from Minnesota has obligated himself to furnish the first thousand in Liberty Bonds.
Who will be second on the list?…
This is the fifth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
Whew.
There was a a lot going on during World War Ⅰ in the pages of Gospel Herald, as writers struggled to refine nonresistant conscientious objection to buying war bonds or otherwise contributing to the war effort.
Even a few hints of war tax resistance started to peek out and look around.
Today I’ll keep it briefer and take us through the period between the world wars when these concerns seemed a bit more distant and abstract.
During the war many of us were glad to give rather large amounts to relief work in lieu of buying bonds or subscribing to other war funds.
This pressure is now no longer brought to bear on us, but let us not therefore grow negligent and slack in our giving.
What sort of a testimony would that bear to the world?
Did we give because we believed in doing good?
Or was it largely because we didn’t have something to which to point which would make our refusal easier?
Let us examine ourselves carefully.
The world is waiting to see what sort of testimony we are bearing along these lines.
In “Church and State” (), David Garber imagined a conversation between a conscientious objector and a government official in which the objector not only explained why he couldn’t buy war bonds but could pay war taxes, but oddly seemed to suggest that the government fund its wars with taxes rather than bonds for that very reason!
Since according to Scripture I cannot conscientiously fight, and kill, you would say I am inconsistent if I should voluntarily buy Liberty Bonds, War Savings Stamps, or support Red Cross war activities, etc., and you would say well, for so it would be; for I would voluntarily be turning one crank of the war machine.
But if the government would lay an equitable tax on all, for this we are commanded to pay to our government, besides this would put an end to this “mob violence” that is practiced.
In the issue, Harold Bender urged Mennonites not to let their guard down in the post-war period — “In Time of Peace Prepare for War” — but was careful to stress that paying taxes was still mandatory:
[N]onresistance is not merely made up of not bearing arms or refusing combatant service, but means a refusal to participate in any way in the war-machine.
It is becoming increasingly clear that war is an effort of the entire nation, and not only of the soldiers on the battlefield.… There is little question among us now that our young men can do nothing else than refuse any service whatsoever which will promote war.
But is it as clear to us that hiring a substitute (as was done in previous wars), or buying war bonds and thus furnishing the financial sinew of war, is just as impossible?
[I]t is clear that the nonresistant people will be allowed to practice their principle in war time only in case the state is disposed to be gracious and bestow the unmerited favor of exemption.
From the human and worldly point of view, nonresistant people have no right to make the claim for such a special and gracious consideration unless they can show an unblamable record of obedient and worthy citizenship in all matters which do not involve the christian conscience.
This means that nonresistant people must pay their taxes, of course…
In “Nonresistance in War-Time” (billed as a pastoral letter written under bishop oversight, and published in the issue), John L. Stauffer again stressed that nonresistance to war doesn’t go as far as refusing to pay war taxes:
We believe that the Bible requires not only the abstinence from the bearing of arms, but also from all other work connected with the prosecution of war and the destruction of life; whether direct through enlistment or by the draft, or indirect through the manufacture of war materials.
We believe that what we do as Christians must glorify God and that therefore we are compelled to draw the line whenever our actions cannot do so.
(1 Cor. 10:31.) As Christians, we cannot accept combatant or noncombatant service, neither can we consistently make investments that help to promote war.
On the other hand, we believe it to be our Christian duty to pay taxes levied upon us by the nation in war-time as well as in peace-time; the responsibility for the use of taxes lies with the officers of administration, and not with the taxpayer.
We believe in “rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” but we cannot consent to surrendering our bodies for military service, because the physical body of the Christian has been bought by our Lord and therefore belongs to Him.
[1 Cor. 6:19–20]
The issue reprinted an article from The Lutheran Witness on “The Separation of Church and State.” It stressed the “two kingdoms” interpretation of the Render Unto Caesar riddle and again emphasized that Christians pay their taxes:
The earliest indication in the New Testament of a distinction between Church and State we find in the words of our Lord: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21).
The Savior was answering the Pharisees who asked one of their trick questions: “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not?” meaning: Shall we as members of the Jewish commonwealth pay taxes to the Roman emperor?
When the Jews showed Him a Roman silver coin, the denarius, which bore the head of the ruling emperor, Jesus answered in the words already quoted.
They mean simply that we owe the government one thing, obedience to its demands for taxes; and to God we owe something else.
What that is, the Lord does not say here; but even a Pharisee would know that what we owe to God is obedience to His commands.
The important thing is that here the two powers are distinguished as to the demands which they may make upon us and the duties which we owe to one or the other.
“Bible Teaching on Nonconformity” (Chester K. Lehman, ) mentioned the tension between “the nonresistant conscience” and war bonds, without seeming to want to take a definite stand on the issue:
Christians have the obligation to pay tribute and custom to and to fear and honor the “powers that be” (Rom. 13:6,7).
This principle came acutely under test during the World War.
The problem did not arise with reference to the payment of taxes some of the proceeds of which were definitely used to carry on the war, but with reference to the purchase of Liberty Bonds which was voluntary, the proceeds of which directly supported the war program.
Here the nonresistant conscience asserted itself.
The former was clearly within the teaching of Scripture, but the latter was voluntary and became a measure of one’s wartime patriotism.
Men who were physically unable on account of the rigors of warfare could render their bit toward the winning of the war by the purchase of bonds.
If the man drafted proved he was a member of a religious body which forbade members to take part in warfare and also demonstrated that he had conscientious scruples against doing so, he was excused upon the payment of a fee of three hundred dollars (in the North).
This fee was specified to be used for succoring the sick and wounded in hospitals.
Many Mennonites paid this commutation fee, as it was called.
Its payment seems to have been generally tolerated by the Church, on the ground that it was a form of taxation.
In some instances well-to-do brethren in the congregation, or the congregation as a whole, paid the fee for young brethren who could not meet it themselves.
In this connection it is interesting to notice that the Quakers generally refused to pay such fees, protesting that it was inconsistent with the principle of nonresistance.
There are three things that the Bible plainly tells us to do in regard to our attitude toward civil powers.
We should pay our taxes, pray for them, and honor them.
…We ought to obey the government.
I repeat again, we ought to be subject to the government as far as we possibly can.
If the government expects something of us, we should give them our best.
One illustration: an experience that I have had and I hope none of you will think that I am boasting.
When the war tension became high, so much of certain supplies was to be raised in a township and districts and certain counties.
I remember, I had just been away for about four days.
I came home during the night and in the morning, bright and early, there were the two gentlemen representing our township.
I knew them well, and they knew me well.
They came in and talked very nice.
They said that they were arranging a quota and of course would have to canvass the township.
They would have to give a report of every individual in the township as to what each would give; and if they would not give anything, why they would not give.
I knew these men.
They said, “We do not like to come here, but we have to give a report.”
They were church members, but not Mennonites.
I said, “Conscientiously I can’t do this.”
They said, “Well, what report shall we give back?”
I said, “There is not one of those head men that has not known me for some time.”
I said, “You tell them that conscientiously I cannot do that.
If you as a group think you ought to have a cow or a horse or a lot of wheat, you may take it; I cannot raise my hand.
But I cannot voluntarily give it.”
That afternoon two other men came back.
They talked over the situation in the same manner.
I said, “I am not making any remittance at all.
Whatever you folks think that you ought to take of mine, here, you just come and take it.
There will be no trouble about it, only I cannot give it.
If you think you ought take it, it is yours.”
I told them the same thing.
And I am glad to say, not because of the saving of a horse or cow or wheat or anything else, they never came.
They never took anything.
I suppose, they made their report, but nobody said anything to me about it.
The people were just as nice as before.
I sympathized with those men that came to talk to me.
They hated to talk to me, yet they felt it their duty.
I was glad for their attitude.
Tomorrow, we’ll see how the Mennonite Church held up after the United States entered World War Ⅱ.
This is the sixth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
In this episode I’m going to try to cover the climactic years of of World War Ⅱ.
Most of what I found concerned the pressure Mennonites were under to buy war bonds (as was the case in World War Ⅰ) and the attempt by Mennonite institutions to develop some sort of “Civilian Bonds” that Mennonites could buy instead with a clean conscience.
I’ll save all that for last.
Here are some other bits that touched on war tax resistance:
Although it is difficult and perhaps impossible for the nonresistant Christian to avoid making some indirect contribution to war and the use of force through the paying of his taxes, still this does not excuse him from taking his stand in testimony against war and for obedience to Christ in every way that is within his power.
“Difficult” and “perhaps impossible” the reviewer says, but not, I note, “unchristian” or “unscriptural” as tax resistance might have been quickly dismissed in the past.
A “Christian Doctrine” supplement carried an unsigned article entitled “Are We All in the War?”
The whole thing is about whether “indirect” support for the national war effort implicates individuals in war.
But the only part that touched on taxes directly was this:
The work the Christian does — on the farm, in the office or factory, or in the home — all contributes in the long run and in remote ways to the support of the nation and its people.
This is most clearly evident in the paying of government taxes, direct or indirect.
There the subject was dropped.
In the “Christian Doctrine” supplement, I found an interesting attempt by Edward Yoder to weaken the interpretation of Romans 13 that says everybody always owes allegiance to their government because all governments are ultimately divinely ordained.
Instead, he claimed, the passage should be interpreted as being advice specific to the Roman Empire at the time Paul’s letter to the Romans was written, which, Yoder claims, was a relatively tranquil and peaceful period of Nero’s rule.
Here are the key excerpts from “The Christian’s Duty to Government”:
Paul certainly was guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he did on this subject.
But it is a fact also that he wrote as he did and with the precise emphasis he did because of certain conditions that existed at the time he wrote.
Though he lays down broad general principles, he was nevertheless giving advice and instruction to people who lived under specific conditions and amid particular surroundings.
[I]n order to grasp the apostle’s sense and meaning, we must try to understand as fully as we can the circumstances under which he wrote these words.
The words taken by themselves and apart from any reference to conditions then existing cannot convey to us the apostle’s mind nor the Holy Spirit’s intention.
Paul wrote to the Roman Christians , at a time when he was spending several months at Corinth while on his third missionary tour.
The Roman emperor at the time was Nero.
This emperor ruled .
He died at the age of thirty-two years, after a reign of fourteen years, according to which reckoning he came to the throne in as a youth of eighteen years.
It so happens that Nero is known to posterity chiefly for his cruelty and his monstrous vices.
It is true that the major part of his reign, and particularly the last part, was marked by some of the worst crimes of which a human being is capable, as well as by an inhuman persecution directed against the Christians.
It is from these facts that Nero derives his deservedly evil reputation in later history.
But not so often are we reminded of the fact that the early part of Nero’s reign was eminently peaceful and orderly.
The first five years that Nero ruled were highly beneficent and prosperous for the empire.
These were the years when he was still a youth and was largely under the influence of his friend and tutor, the Stoic philosopher Seneca.
It was only after the first five years of his reign that Nero cast off the influence of his teacher and began to give free reign to the more base and vicious traits in his character.
It was, accordingly, in these early years of Nero’s reign that Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans.
This fact should no doubt be kept in mind when we read the apostle’s unqualified instruction to the Christians, that they must be subject to the government over them and should regard it as ordained of God.
Whether Paul would have written in exactly the same vein and with the same emphasis [illegible] years later, when the Roman government had begun to martyr Christians, we cannot know.
Yoder goes on to “consider the nature of Paul’s contacts with officials of the Roman government up to the time he wrote his Letter to the Romans” and notes that in general, they were good: Roman officials tended to sympathize with Christians and protect them from persecutors, and Paul’s Roman citizenship helped him get around and stay out of too much trouble… for a while.
Implied also is that Paul, who would soon try to get legal recognition for Christianity in Rome, was under pressure to distinguish Christians as relatively law-abiding compared to the restive Jews of which they were at the time considered a mere subsect.
Evidently he was not thinking of a government at war but only of the normal police and judicial functions of its officials.
To take his admonition to be obedient to rulers in an absolute and unqualified sense is to mistake the apostle’s meaning, we may be sure.
Though Paul did write in this connection of human government as established of God, it is significant to note that in the Revelation of John, which was written later, earthly governments, especially those that persecuted and martyred Christians, are represented as ravenous beasts.
Circumstances appear to have determined to some extent how the Christians regarded rulers and government.
These same considerations also may help to account for something that we feel is lacking in Paul’s instruction at this point.
Seemingly he left out of account the possibility that the government, “the powers that be,” might become anti-Christian or openly hostile to the Christian faith and its propagation.
He speaks of rulers as the rewarders of those who do what is good.
Nevertheless Paul himself lived to see the day when this same government began to punish those who did right, to punish Christians for the faith they held and propagated.
He himself suffered martyrdom under the government which he had described as “ordained of God.”
The fact that he placed no qualification on the duty of obedience to rulers in this passage did not mean that he would not qualify it in actual practice.
Evidently in practice Paul agreed with Peter when he informed the rulers at Jerusalem, that it is necessary always “to obey God rather than man,” whenever the demands of the two conflict with each other (Acts 4:19; 5:29).
…May we as followers of Christ in these days of increasing governmental demands upon the population search the Scriptures more carefully and intelligently than ever to learn the will of God and our duty toward government under the circumstances in which we live.
War tax resisters in the Mennonite Church would have to reform the traditional understanding of verses like those in Romans 13 in order to make headway, and this was one early attempt.
The traditionalists didn’t surrender without a fight.
For instance, “The Christian’s Duty to the Government” by J.C. Kolb, , reasserted the traditional “two kingdoms” reading of Romans 13 and insisted that “If the property or money [a Christian] has accumulated is demanded by the government, he gives it without resistance.”
Kolb felt that those who enjoy the privilege of living under our government “should be impressed that it is a solemn duty to report at full value all taxable property, and should make no effort to evade payment of any tax or use their influence to have what may seem burdensome taxes or laws repealed.”
When good Christians encounter the government, he believed, they should “willingly render… all their dues, ‘tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.’ ”
Harold S. Bender wrote about the connection between money and war in the issue, stressing the bond issue but giving no credence to war tax resistance as an option:
Money is involved in war in three ways: (1) Money that goes into war; (2) Money that war destroys; and (3) Money that comes out of war.
In each of these three phases the Christian conscience speaks to control action and attitude.
1. The Money That Goes into War. —
In time of peace we were told that war is so expensive that it is unthinkable that civilized nations would repeat the folly of the first World War.
Yet today countless billions (not mere millions) are being spent to carry on the most destructive war in history.
Modern war is expensive because it is highly mechanized and motorized, and only those nations can practice war which have command of great material resources and have great industrial production.
Before this war is over, it may well cost the participants a total of a half trillion dollars.
It will cost the United States of America in the next fiscal year perhaps $100,000,000,000.
These figures do not include the cost of war’s destruction.
The money that goes into war must be paid by the people of the nations that make war.
Most of it is paid in cash derived from taxes and loans, largely loans.
Taxes are levies made by the power of the state upon its citizens.
If the levies are not paid they will be taken by force.
Loans are voluntary surrenders of cash in return for a promise to repay and on which interest is earned.
The Scripture teaches plainly that Christians should pay taxes, which are forced collections, unreturnable non-interest bearing.
It does not teach that voluntary contributions should be made to support war.
The Christian conscience which cannot take direct part in war cannot willingly take indirect part in war.
The man who makes loans to the government for the prosecution of war, pays others to do, and makes it possible for them to do, what he himself cannot conscientiously do.
In addition, he makes a profit (interest) from the business of killing.
On these grounds the Nonresistant Christian cannot aid in financing war.
He cannot consistently purchase war bonds.
But to purchase government bonds in peace-time, or the same type of bonds (civilian bonds) in war time, is not only legitimate, but may be the Christian’s duty.
The war bond purchaser commits treason against his own nonresistant conscience and his witness against war.
By purchasing civilian bonds he keeps his witness clear.
What is the record of the Mennonite Church in the matter of war bond and civilian bond purchases in the present war?
No statistics are available as to war bond purchases, but sufficient is known to warrant the statement that there is as much or more weakness and betrayal of the nonresistant position on this point than there is on the draft.
A considerable number of members have purchased and are purchasing war bonds.
Some ministers have neither admonished against such purchases, nor advised civilian bond purchases, and it is reputed that some have purchased such bonds themselves.
Some (very few, no doubt) have served on bond campaign committees.
Failure on the war bond question seems all the more inexcusable in our rural communities where the pressure is not strong and where no compulsion is used.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury has instructed all war bond committees to give full recognition to conscience in this matter by recognizing civilian bond purchases.
No one needs to purchase war bonds; if he does so, he does it because he prefers war bonds to civilian bonds.
Our young men are “on the spot” in the matter of the draft.
They cannot escape public scrutiny; their position on military service inevitably becomes known.
What would be the result if our men who are still earning and are not drafted were to be placed publicly “on the spot” in the matter of war bond purchases?
Perhaps it would be an aid in strengthening consciences.
The same is true in the matter of civilian bond purchases.
There are at least 15,000 heads of families in the Mennonite Church, but to date apparently less than one fourth have subscribed to civilian bonds.
Since money put into civilian bonds does not go into war, and since it aids in carrying the national burden and in preventing inflation, there is good reason for conscientious nonresistant people to do their proper share by purchasing civilian bonds in proportion to their income.
What then shall we as conscientious Christians do with our money in war time?
The simple answer is: keep it out of war, and keep it in the Lord’s work; but in any case use it conscientiously and sacrificially, not as usurers but as stewards.
During the Alberta-Saskatchewan Conference it was noted that some of the “boys” in the camps for conscripted conscientious objectors were being asked to sign contracts in which part of their wages were to be paid to the Red Cross.
Because the Red Cross was working closely with the military, Mennonites had been discouraged from making voluntary donations to the Red Cross.
However, because a contract like the ones the conscientious objectors were being told to sign “partakes of the nature of a tax” (as opposed to a voluntary contribution) the conference advised the objectors to go ahead and sign such contracts while they tried to work out an alternative.
The edition included an interesting (but uncredited) letter “From a C.O. to His Pastor”.
Part of this letter tried to reform the understanding of the Render Unto Caesar riddle in a similar way to that in which Edward Yoder tried to loosen the bonds of Romans 13:
When Jesus said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” He did not answer the Pharisees’ question.
He merely gave them the principle for answering the question for themselves.
He did not say the tax money belonged to Caesar, nor did He say that it belonged to God.
He made no decision for them.
I do not see how more than just that can be made from this passage.
It in no way defines what it is that belongs to Caesar, neither does it say what belongs to God.
We must of course give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, but we must also take care lest we give to Caesar what alone belongs to God.
In fulfilling our new responsibility, we “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.”
When taxes are called for, we gladly, wholeheartedly, and honestly render them to the authorities.
Before salvation had wrought in us the change which enables us to do this, we attempted whenever possible to render unto ourselves the things that were Caesar’s.
We were vain enough to endeavor to do such things because at the same time we were trying to render unto ourselves the things that belonged to God.
It seems to me that when we truly learn to “Render… to God the things that are God’s,” we will also faithfully “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.”
And a “Sunday School Lesson” on “The True Christian a Good Citizen” (credited to “A.M.E.” — likely Alta May Erb) supplemented this with a non-scriptural reason why Christians ought to pay all their taxes:
In return for what we receive we should be glad to pay our taxes.
No true Christian will grumble at or try to avoid them in any way.
It costs money to run the government.
If the money we give is not all used wisely, we are not responsible for that.
A couple of articles around this time tried to draw a distinction between the Mennonite “nonresistance” doctrine, which included unwillingness to participate in war but which was based on Jesus’s command to “resist not evil,” with the superficially similar philosophy of pacifism, which was a non-Biblically based position about the use of violence:
This suggests to me that Mennonites were beginning to feel some pressure from the pacifist flank about the adequacy or sincerity of their nonresistant position, or that some Mennonites were beginning to drift from traditional nonresistance into a more radical pacifism and that the traditionalists felt the need to bring them back in line.
The “Civilian Bonds” Scheme
Okay: This is going to be a bit lengthy, and some of it is going to be dull, but it’s an important part of the story.
Brace yourselves.
We’ll start with an editorial signed “H.” (John L. Horst, I think) concerning “Defense Spending and Defense Bonds” that appeared in the edition.
(The U.S. had begun to offer “Defense Bonds” for sale on .)
Excerpts:
Many of us recall the high-pressure drives to sell liberty bonds during the World War some twenty years ago.
It is worthy of note that the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, announces that “there is to be no ‘drive’, there are to be no quotas, there is to be no hysteria, there is to be no appeal to hate or fear.”
This is a fine statement and we can only hope that it will be carried out in good faith.
At the same time it is well to notice that already a “drive” is on over the radio and through the press and that a real sales campaign is on.
The sale and purchase of war bonds has always been an issue of real concern to all who are opposed to war on Christian principles.
If it is wrong to take up the sword or the rifle or other instruments of warfare, what about lending money to help produce and buy war materials?
Also what about working in a factory which makes war materials? although that is not now our subject.
On both of these points our General Conference has spoken.
The statement on “Peace, War, and Military Service,” as adopted by the session of General Conference, at Turner, Oregon, , says on the point of war or defense bonds:
We can have no part in the financing of war operations through the purchase of war bonds in any form or through voluntary contributions to any of the organizations or activities falling under the category described above [civil organizations such as the Y.M.C.A. and Red Cross, temporarily allied with the military in the prosecution of the war] unless such contributions are used for civilian relief or similar purposes.
It is well for us as nonresistant people to study the implications of the present drive for money to be used for defense purposes.
Even though the government disavows all high-pressure methods for the sale of defense bonds and stamps, one cannot tell what may happen in local communities.
It is well to be prepared so that we may give intelligent and Scriptural reasons for our nonparticipation in this movement, either in buying or in selling.
Let us aim in all things to maintain a consistent and courageous attitude, yet with all humility, so that we may not, on the spur of the moment or under strong pressure, be drawn into doing that which we will later regret and which is entirely incompatible with the profession of our faith.
A follow-up concerned scrap metal drives and “our sincerity in refusing to participate in the drive for defense aluminum and all similar defense efforts that solicit voluntary contributions.”
O[rie].O. Miller reported on arrangements made by the M.C.C. to issue certificates of receipt for donations made to War Sufferers’ Relief and Civilian Public Service, which certificates could be used by our people as substitutes for giving to various defense and war drives such as U.S.O.
He also reported on the possibility that a special agricultural bond issue might be issued by the government which could be purchased by our people as substitutes for defense or war bonds.
The National Service Board is working on this matter.
We are conscious of the fact that the human and material resources of the nation are being marshalled by our government in a total war effort, and that we shall be expected and asked, possibly in some matters commanded, to participate in it.
In the light of our historic nonresistant position, which is well known to our government and our fellow citizens by repeated testimonies in recent times, and has been maintained with devotion for over four hundred years, and which we hold as a deep and sincere conviction of conscience based upon our understanding of the Gospel of Christ and the Word of God, we do not see how we can consistently participate in this national war effort, much as we purpose in all other respects to be obedient, loyal, and productive citizens.
We are deeply grateful for the continued recognition of our religious conscience which is contained in the Selective Service and Training Act…
If in this supreme demand for participation in the national war effort our democracy has honored the religious conscience to the extent of total exemption, we are confident that in all lesser demands a similar freedom and protection of conscience will be extended.
This, we believe, will apply… to participation in war financing through the purchase of war or defense bonds and savings stamps…
[W]e desire to appeal to our people on the following points:
That we do not purchase war and defense bonds and savings stamps, but rather purchase civilian government bonds and savings stamps as they are provided.
Inasmuch as the question of the purchase of government bonds and savings stamps is now before many of our people, we suggest the following to meet this situation:
That M.C.C. certificates of donation for relief and civilian public service, and M.C.C. donation stamps, might serve as alternates to defense bond and savings stamp purchases, particularly for those with limited means and for children.
That those who are able to purchase government bonds of substantial size might make use of a statement of readiness to purchase civilian bonds when they become available.
The following form might be useful for this purpose:
Statement of Readiness to Purchase Civilian Government Bonds
In consistency with my religious belief and conscientious convictions, I cannot aid or abet war or give voluntary support to the national war effort, and for these reasons cannot purchase government obligations the proceeds of which are used for war purposes.
However, I do wish to support my country with such means as are at my disposal, for constructive ends and particularly in works of relief of human need and suffering, and am accordingly prepared and ready to purchase $⸺ par value of government obligations that may become available for such purposes, when and as they are approved by the Mennonite Central Committee to this end.
I will subsequently make additional purchases as my circumstances and the general situation may warrant.
Signed ⸺
As we learned when we went through The Mennonite archives, the quest during World War Ⅱ for “Civilian Bonds” in the U.S. that would not be tainted by military spending ended up being the pursuit of a mirage.
There were some issues of government bonds that were not called war bonds, and that some Mennonites eagerly purchased for that reason, but the money went to the exact same place either way.
To date, no law or regulation has been passed compelling civilians (which includes all of us not in the army) to participate in any way in the national war effort.
There is no governmental compulsion to buy war or defense bonds or savings stamps, support the Red Cross, work in defense or war industries, or participate in Civilian Defense activities.
Therefore anyone who participates in the various phases of the war effort does so voluntarily.
Pressures on our people to take part in these things may be strong, but they are no stronger than the pressures on our drafted men to accept service in the army.
As sincere nonresistant people we should not yield to these pressures and thus compromise our faith and our conscience.
We should not be less steadfast at home than those who are drafted to camp.
Gradual progress apparently is being made on the bond issue for which we have been hoping.
Just as soon as we have definite information, it will be sent out.
Meanwhile, we encourage the increased use of the Contributor’s Certificates and the Statement of Readiness to Purchase Civilian Government Bonds.
These two expedients have proven effective in the relief of pressure to buy Defense Bonds in most cases that have come to our attention where they have been wisely employed.
There are constant inquiries about civilian government bonds.
As yet there is no definite information about them.
When such information is at hand, it will be passed on without delay.
Meanwhile, there are the temporary expedients of “Statement of Readiness to Purchase Civilian Government Bonds” and the Contributor’s certificate.
Probably these possibilities have not yet been exhausted in most cases.
In the following issue () Hoover tried to make the situation more clear:
Judging from the constant flow of inquiries, there is obviously a rather general misunderstanding concerning the purpose and use of Bonds, Certificates, and stamps.
The Mennonite Central Committee has adopted a certificate for contributions to Relief or Civilian Public Service.
This serves as a form of receipt for contributions to the services administered by the M.C.C. for the various co-operating groups.
The minimum contribution for which these certificates were formerly issued was ten dollars.
This has now been changed, so that any gift of five dollars or more will be recognized by a certificate.
For smaller amounts or for those who prefer the stamp-album plan stamps have been provided as a receipt for contributions.
When stamps have been accumulated to the amount of five dollars, a certificate will be issued if desired.
Possession of… certificates and stamps by individuals who cannot conscientiously participate in the financial side of the military program, indicates their eagerness to support an alternative program of constructive service to their country and their fellowmen.
These certificates and stamps are not officially recognized by the United States Government as alternative to defense bonds and stamps, but they are significant to the extent that they represent genuine sacrifice on the part of the contributors, and support to national service which they can conscientiously give.
Neither the certificates nor the stamps are redeemable.
Their only dividend is satisfaction in a service of good-will rendered in behalf of human freedom and welfare.
The certificates and stamps are simply evidence of gifts made to this testimony for peace and good-will, which is the spirit of Christ and is done in His name.
Such evidence of support given to such humanitarian and constructive causes as are sponsored by the M.C.C. should have its effect in relieving pressure to contribute or lend to military purposes.
But these are not officially recognized as alternatives to defense bonds.
As a direct answer to growing pressure to buy defense bonds the M.C.C. and other interested groups through the National Service Board are seeking to have a special issue of Civilian Government Bonds or notes from the U.S. Treasury Department, which will be earmarked for Civilian services instead of for war.
There is reason to believe that such will eventually be available from the Government.
But this is not yet certain.
These bonds are not yet available.
When they are issued, information as to where and how to obtain them will be given.
Meanwhile, the continued and consistent use of the “Statement of Readiness to Purchase Civilian Government Bonds” is encouraged.
These have provided temporary relief of pressure in most cases where wisely applied.
These are simply what the name implies, an indication that the individual is willing to purchase Civlian Government Bonds if and when such are issued.
It is well to read carefully the statement which is carried on these.
It should be self-explanatory.
When new developments come, information will be given.
Until then, it should help substantially to relieve pressure if you have evidence of generous contributions to the Relief and Civilian Public Service program now being carried on by the Mennonite Central Committee.
We wish to reaffirm that it does not appear consistent for our members who are conscientious objectors, to knowingly fail to register as such, voluntarily continue to work in generally recognized direct war defence shops, or to voluntarily purchase War Defense Bonds, Stamps, and such like.
Another note in the edition showed that at least a few Mennonites were endorsing some really flimsy fig leaves, like buying war bonds and affixing stickers to them saying that the money should only be used for nice things:
Mennonites Support Victory Loan.
Full co-operation of Ontario Mennonites was pledged toward the second Victory Loan, it was announced by Jesse B. Martin of Waterloo.
Secretary of the war problems committee of the conference of historic peace churches, Bro. Martin said Mennonites would purchase two types of bonds.
One is a non-interest bearing certificate, Series B, which was instituted a year ago in lieu of war savings certificates.
The second is the regular Victory Bond to which a sticker will be attached stating the money will be used “to finance expenditures to alleviate distress and human suffering due to war.”
The same applies to the non-interest bearing bonds.
Church officials in Waterloo North have authorized letters to be sent to every Mennonite family asking their full co-operation.
Last year Mennonites loaned to the government without interest and donated outright in relief work a total in excess of $35,000.
―Ernest Gingerich in “Christian Conservator.”
The Peace Problems Committee of General Conference met at Akron, Pa., on , to take up matters especially relating to the Civilian Bond question.
It is believed that a satisfactory solution to this problem has been found, and the Committee expects to make a complete report in the near future.
Bro. H.S. Bender, chairman of our Peace Problems Committee sends us the following:
The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Morgenthau, has approved in principle the plan to issue civilian bonds which had been proposed to him by the Mennonite Central Committee.
Details are still to be worked out.
Full announcement will be made later.
A meeting of representative church leaders will be called at Chicago to present the entire matter at the earliest possible date.
The following article, from the Gospel Herald’s “Christian Doctrine” supplement, shows just how “voluntary” these bond drives were, at least for government employees:
A general campaign will soon be under way to sell one billion dollars’ worth of War Savings Bonds and Stamps each month.
This campaign is to be purely voluntary.
Many people, however, have conscientious scruples about participating to this extent in the war effort and yet are willing to co-operate in preventing inflation.
Governor James of Pennsylvania, in a memorandum to State employees in , stated, “In the event that any employee has conscientious objections to purchasing defense stamps or bonds, a pledge form for him must contain a statement to that effect, showing the religious denomination or sect of which he is a member.
Such employee is expected to contribute, before the end of the campaign, to a relief or service organization of his choice, such as the Friends Service Committee, American Red Cross, etc.
The pledge form must also contain a statement of his intentions to make such contribution.”
On , the Deputy State Administrator for Pennsylvania of the Treasury Department Defense Savings Staff in a letter to the Field Secretary of Race Street Yearly Meeting of Friends says, “We realize that your members are making large and generous contributions in connection with the dictates of their own consciences.
We also realize that your members… would not like to have anyone feel that they are not co-operating as far as possible in accordance with their personal leanings.”
The letter then advises that contributions and pledges to the Civilian Public Service Camps are an acceptable alternative to the purchase of War Savings Bonds.
Would not the governor of your state issue a similar statement, if he were requested to do so?
―From “Peace Action.”
The “Civilian Bonds” scheme took at step forward in , according to this article by Orie O. Miller:
Since last week’s release of Secretary of the Treasury, Henry M. Morgenthau Jr.’s letter of to Paul French, naturally many inquiries have come to M.C.C. headquarters as to the necessary next steps in taking advantage of this announced provision for purchase of non-war Bonds.
A committee representative of each of the several groups most interested in this has held a number of meetings and is in process of completing arrangements with the Provident Trust Company of Philadelphia to serve as intermediary in this matter.
It is expected that the detailed plans to make the arrangement effective will be ready for submission to the responsible agencies in these several groups by .
It is hoped that fully detailed information will be available for any one interested in using this provision before .
Naturally, all who are concerned in this problem are appreciative of the Treasury Department’s attitude.
On , at the call of the Peace Problems Committee of General Conference, a group of fifty church leaders, representing for the most part the constituent groups represented in or co-operating with the Mennonite Central Committee, met at the Home Mission in Chicago, to consider a plan for the issuance of Civilian Bonds for those who are conscientiously opposed to the purchase of war or defense bonds.
It had been previously announced that the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morganthau, Jr., had approved the issuance of such bonds for those who cannot participate in the purchase of war bonds.
Tentative arrangements had been made for the sale of such bonds through the Provident Trust Company of Philadelphia, Pa., and it remained now for the Mennonite Church and co-operating bodies to decide whether the arrangements were satisfactory, and, if so, to make plans for publicity and sale of the bonds and the placing of responsibility for supervision of the work and continued contacts with the Provident Trust Company and the Treasury Department.
After the plan was thoroughly explained it was approved by all present, and the Mennonite Central Committee was designated as the publicity and implementing agent for Mennonite and co-operating groups.
Orie O. Miller was designated as the Mennonite representative on a Civilian Bond Committee of three, the other representatives to be limited to the Church of the Brethren, and the Friends, who are also vitally interested in the issuance of these bonds.
Action was also taken to provide for the appointment of an advisory committee to assist Bro. Miller in his Civilian Bond work.
The meeting also passed the following resolution which should be of interest to our church leaders as well as to all members who could participate in the purchase of bonds:
Inasmuch as our government continues to need borrowed funds for its ongoing civilian services as stated by the Secretary of the Treasury, and inasmuch as it is our duty and privilege as Christians to support our government by the means at our disposal within the limits of conscience, and inasmuch as an acceptable plan has been provided whereby our people can purchase civilian government bonds with the distinct recognition of our conscience by the government, as reported and recommended by the Peace Problems Committee, we hereby express our appreciation to the government for this privilege and advise and encourage our people to purchase the Civilian Bonds provided for the above plan, not grudgingly but cheerfully, in line with our financial ability and what is expected of the nation as a whole in the way of financial support of the government at the present time.
Official notice from the Peace Problems Committee will appear later in the Gospel Herald stating more specifically the plan that has been worked out and giving the date when money may be sent in for the purchase of these bonds.
Arrangements for the sale should be completed soon, and will fill a long-felt need on the part of all who cannot conscientiously purchase war bonds.
We may well thank the Lord for this recognition of conscience on the part of our government.
Orie O. Miller gave some further notes about the plan in the issue:
A specially called meeting of the Mennonite Central Committee with about [illegible] representatives from the several M.C.C. constituent groups met at the Mennonite Home Mission… , to give consideration to the detailed plans which have been developed from the promotion, purchasing, and handling of Civilian Bonds to be made available as outlined in United States Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr.’s letter to Paul C. French.
The plan as presented was unanimously endorsed by the official committees representing the several M.C.C. constituent groups.
The Mennonite Central Committee was requested by all these groups to serve their interests further in this matter.
The Committee then provided for the continuing program.
Fuller details will appear in next week’s notes, and it is hoped within another ten days to send directly to all our congregations full information as to the operation of the plan.
I remind you that as far as I have been able to determine, there was no practical difference between war bonds and “Civilian Bonds” except for their names.
In both cases, people who bought the bonds were loaning money to the federal government that went into the general fund for Congress to spend on war and everything else.
The war bond / victory bond designations were only marketing tools designed to make certain bond issues more appealing to war supporters.
So all of this fuss is just to figure out a way that Mennonites can buy a bunch of government bonds during the war like everyone else is doing, without having to buy bonds that are explicitly called “war” bonds.
Nonetheless, such bonds apparently “recognized the conscience of nonresistant people” and “fill[ed] a longfelt need on the part of those who cannot conscientiously purchase war or defense bonds,” as the following editorial put it (, credited to “H.” — possibly John L. Horst):
Elsewhere in this issue will be found a lengthy account of the development and adoption of a nonwar bond plan which is acceptable both to the government and to the peace churches.
This new plan, which will soon be in operation, fills a longfelt need on the part of those who cannot conscientiously purchase war or defense bonds.
The article referred to explains the plan and how it will operate.
It should be noted that the purchases are to be made though the Provident Trust Company of Philadelphia, Pa., and that the bonds are a type similar to the series G of regular defense bonds in this way: they are priced at par, and that the interest is paid periodically by check from the United States Treasury.
It should also be noted that $1.50 should be sent in addition to the par value of the bond, in order to pay the Trust company for its services in purchasing the bond.
This applies to all denominations of bonds, that is, the purchaser of a $50 bond should send $51.50, and he who buys a $500 bond should send $501.50.
The plan will be explained in greater detail in the circulars which will be sent to pastors of all our churches.
Your minister should be able to give you whatever information you need concerning the purchase of Civilian bonds.
Since these bonds will be counted into the quotas which the government allots to different geographical sections, this should relieve all pressure to buy war bonds once local sponsors of bond drives understand the principle of the plan as laid down by the government.
It should also be said that, in line with our duty to the government to support its nonwar functions, we should be willing to buy bonds in quantities similar to what is expected of the nation as a whole.
Once again the government has recognized the conscience of nonresistant people and has made provision by which they can serve their country in accordance with their consciences with regard to the support of war.
May we therefore not hesitate to avail ourselves of the privileges and opportunities which our government gives to us as a people.
We have another reason to praise the Lord that we are living in America instead of in some dictator-dominated, militaristic nation.
The following article, also from the issue, gave more details about the negotiations that went in to the formation of the Civilian Bonds plan:
A concern for a Civilian Bond Purchase plan was first noted and discussed by the National Service Board for Religious Objectors in , at which time a Committee was appointed to study possibilities.
For many months all contacts with Treasury Department officials seemed fruitless.
, it was agreed that those groups most concerned should address their petitions in writing to Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, and that Paul Comly French of the Committee would then present these letters in person.
Among these was the following letter, prepared under the direction of the Mennonite Central Committee:
The Honorable Mr. Henry Morgenthau
Secretary of the Treasury
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Morgenthau:
In the attached statement of the position of the Mennonite Church on “Peace, War, and Military Service” adopted at its General Conference at Turner, Oregon, in , you will note on page 3, item 3 the following:
“We can have no part in the financing of war operations through the purchase of war bonds in any form or through voluntary contributions to any of the organizations or activities falling under the category described immediately above, unless such contributions are used for civilian relief or similar purposes.”
In other portions of this same statement can be noted the implications of our position and the Biblical basis for it as it relates to military service.
All of the Mennonite bodies co-operating through the agency of this Committee hold substantially this position.
As a religious group we appreciate most sincerely the respect granted us in this position at the present time and the provision which has been made for our conscripted young men to render their service to this country through Civilian Public Service as provided for in “The Selective Training and Service Act of ” and the subsequent regulations by the Selective Service Administration.
Current contributions from the Committee’s membership constituency to the cost of carrying forward the Committee’s administrative share of this program are running between Thirty and Forty Thousand Dollars monthly.
In the numerous other relationships which the members of our groups have in this country at the present time, we are endeavoring to consistently apply our ideals and purposes outlined not only in this statement but also in other similar statements of position made during our past four centuries of history.
The purpose of this letter, however, is to bring to your attention the quotation noted above with the request that your office give consideration to some technique by which our members could consistently aid their government with the loan of financial means at their disposal without violating conscience.
In this connection and through the agency of the National Service Board for Religious Objectors… Paul Comly French, Executive Secretary, we have on a number of occasions during the past months contacted individuals in your department — among these, Mr. Graves, Mr. Houghtling, and Mr. Kuhns — and have also explained our concern to Wayne Coy, Senator Robert A. Taft, and others.
Inasmuch as our constituents in Canada were faced with a similar situation earlier than we, and since the Canadian government arranged to make available to them two special types of investments (a Series B, noninterest-bearing, nonnegotiable certificate, whose proceeds were designated for reconstruction and relief work; and special stickers for the regular Victory Bond Series, which served to designate such funds for the same purpose), it was our earlier assumption that perhaps similar offerings might be made available to our members in the United States.
Through Mr. French, however, we now learn that your Department has investigated this Canadian provision and has stated that such provision would be too expensive from the standpoint of administrative cost.
Representatives of the Treasury Department in Ottawa have advised our own leaders in Canada of their satisfaction with the arrangement and of their appreciation of the subscriptions to date.
From the angle of our own position such an arrangement as is provided in Canada would be entirely satisfactory.
In the matter of the cost of administration to the government in making such or similar offerings available to our people here, we believe also that a plan could be worked out to cover this administrative cost by and within our own group.
We have also been advised by Treasury Department representatives that the type of certificate, bond, or evidence of indebtedness which would meet these purposes is not available in the United States and could not be made available except by an Act of Congress.
On this point we, of course, recognize that you yourself would be in the best position to know what might be best or could be arranged.
It has occurred to us however — inasmuch as our Government does continue to have financial needs along a number of civilian lines as heretofore — that perhaps some form of special, long-term, low-interest-bearing, nonnegotiable Treasury Note might be made available in units of One Hundred Thousand Dollars or more bearing a statement on its face to the effect that the amount of money in question represents aid to the Government in certain of its continuing civilian interests.
We think, for instance, of the budget requirements allowed to Selective Service — Camp Operations Division — by which funds are provided for the “Work of National Importance” technical agencies co-operating with our present Civilian Public Service program.
We do not know what this amounts to annually but assume that the total is at least several millions of dollars.
We would be happy to have the proceeds of loans made by our people so indicated on the face of the aforementioned Treasury Note.
The provision of such an arrangement as outlined in the foregoing paragraph would also imply that the Treasury would recognize local subscriptions to these on the part of our members as acceptable in lieu of subscriptions to the regularly offered Defense Bond Series; in fact, it would be entirely satisfactory to us to have such subscriptions channeled through the regular local soliciting agencies as is being done in Canada.
The membership of Mennonite and co-operating groups in the United States totals, in round numbers, 125,000 — our total constituency, including children, is perhaps something under 200,000.
We believe that the average wealth and income of Mennonites is about the same as that of the average of other American citizens, and we are certain that if a Treasury offering were made available to us consistent with our group’s historic position on this question our members throughout the country would subscribe their full share and more.
We will be glad to give you further full assurance of this, and also as noted before, we will be happy to arrange to carry the additional administrative costs for making available and handling such offerings received through one of our group agencies.
Because of the large number of inquiries received at this office on this point we have made available some months ago to our members a printed statement of “Readiness to Purchase Civilian Government Bonds” as per attached copy.
The large quantity of these that have been ordered from our office and the continued large number of letters received by us convince us of the growing concern of our members throughout the country that if at all possible something consistent with the position we hold might be arranged.
We will be glad to meet with you or any one in the Treasury Department whom you designate to discuss this matter further at any time and place that you suggest.
We do hope for your favorable consideration of this petition and request at any early date.
Very sincerely,
MENNONITE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
Orie O. Miller
Executive Secretary
Subsequent to this presentation and discussion of same in the office of Under-Secretary of the Treasury, Daniel W. Bell, there was the following further exchange of correspondence between Paul Comly French and the Treasury.
Mr. Henry Morgenthau, Jr.
Secretary of the State
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Morgenthau:
This will confirm our conversation regarding the problem confronting the members of the religious groups represented by the National Service Board for Religious Objectors who feel conscientiously unable to purchase Defense Bonds.
They understand that there are continuing expenses for the regular functions of the Government, totalling some six billion dollars annually.
Would it be possible for us to purchase regular issues of Treasury bonds and notes and then redistribute them to our people in smaller denominations through a nonprofit corporation we are organizing?
Any rate of interest established by the Treasury is agreeable to us, but we would prefer a rate lower than that paid on Defense Bonds.
We are willing to accept notes with any maturity date which seems right to you.
We would handle all subscriptions, and the Treasury would not be required to assume any additional clerical burden on our behalf.
If this plan is satisfactory to you, would it be possible for us to explain to our neighbors that we are aiding in the financing of the Government in ways that our consciences permit and that the United States Treasury has approved our plan?
Cordially yours,
Paul Comly French
Dear Mr. French:
This will acknowledge your letter of
In line with our recent conversation, I think you understand that the Treasury needs some six billion dollars annually to maintain civilian services of the Government which are essential to the basic needs of human life, to conserve our national resources, and to keep in repair our national plant.
The Treasury would be willing to have the funds to be subscribed by your people invested in Treasury bills, Treasury certificate of indebtedness, Treasury notes, and Treasury bonds which the Treasury offers publicly to the people of the United States from time to time, and which are not designated by their terms as “war issues.”
I shall be glad to see that you are notified each time an offering of this kind is made.
It is our understanding that you will buy such securities as are issued, in amounts in line with the financial resources of your people, and then distribute certificates of participation in smaller denominations through a nonprofit corporation you are organizing.
This plan is agreeable to us and will, we believe, satisfy the American people that the groups you represent are contributing to the support of the Government in ways their consciences will permit.
We understand that the groups you represent are making contributions to the support of the Civilian Public Service Camps for conscientious objectors authorized by the Congress and the Selective Service System which would otherwise have been a charge on the Treasury of the United States.
We are all seeking the same objectives and ail glad that our American democracy is able to recognize the conscientious convictions of a minority of our citizens.
Sincerely yours,
H. Morgenthau, Jr.
Secretary of the Treasury
After receiving the letter from Mr. Morgenthau’s office, a meeting of representatives of interested groups was called together in Philadelphia for discussion of further procedure.
It was there concluded that as intermediary between the subscribers and the government for these bonds and as agent for these subscribers and the groups they represent, an established, well-known, financial institution would be preferable to any other plan that might be devised.
Provident Trust Company of Philadelphia was suggested. Contact was immediately made through one Provident Trust Company’s Vice-President and the group was assured that this institution would endeavor to serve in this capacity.
A series of conferences with officials of Provident Trust Company and a further conference with Under-Secretary Daniel W.B[illegible] ironed out and developed further details necessary before the plan could be presented to the groups concerned.
By , however, it was felt that the plan was ready for such presentation.
A special meeting of representatives of the operating Mennonite and associated groups was, therefore, called to meet with the M.C.C. at the Mennonite Home Mission… on .
The Secretary of the Mennonite Central Committee presented to this gathering the provision for purchase of Civilian Bonds by those who cannot conscientiously purchase War Bonds and gave at the same time a review of the work which had been done in this matter by the representatives of the Committee and of the National Service Board, and stated: (a) that Provident Trust Company will serve as agent for the purchase of Civilian Government Bonds to be distributed to individuals, (b) That a representative of the Mennonite Central Committee, with representatives of the Brethren Service Committee and the American Friends Service Committee would constitute a Civilian Bond Committee to supervise the plan and to apply for specific Government Bond purchases, (c) That a charge of $1.50 for each bond purchased by subscriber would cover all costs of the service.
A letter from Provident Trust Company to the M.C.C. tentatively outlining the arrangement for their services as agent was read.
Further explanation was also made to the gathering concerning the method of promoting the sale of these bonds and of explaining the plan to our people.
After clarification of specific points in the plan, the gathering gave consideration to it and what attitudes our several groups would want to take toward same in separate M.C.C. constituent group meetings.
Following this, the gathering reassembled for receiving the reports from the several groups.
Inasmuch as these were practically unanimous in favoring the plan, the following resolution was then moved and seconded as the evident mind of the meeting and passed by unanimous vote:
That we approve the Civilian Bond plan submitted by Orie O. Miller, Executive Secretary of the Mennonite Central Committee, and charge the Mennonite Central Committee with the responsibility of representing the co-operating Mennonite and associated groups in the administration and promotion of the plan, and in any further needed representation to the government or private agencies.
At this point the Mennonite Central Committee membership then took over further action as noted in the following minutes:
That the Mennonite Central Committee accept the charge assigned to it in the matter of the Civilian Bond Plan by the co-operating Mennonite and associate groups and proceed to set up the organization and policies necessary to carry out the plan.
Moved and passed that the promotion of the Civilian Bond program in the churches be made the responsibility of the Peace Section, together with the responsibility for raising the finances necessary for this work.
Moved and passed that Orie O. Miller be appointed the M.C.C. representative on the Civilian Bond Committee.
Moved and passed that the Executive Committee appoint an advisory committee to assist O.O. Miller in his work as Mennonite representative on the Civilian Bond Committee.
The Brethren Service Committee has similarly approved for its constituency the program as outlined and has designated its representative on the Civilian Bond Committee.
The American Friends Service Committee still has the plan under advisement with indication that this constituency will also co-operate.
A publicity folder approved by Provident Trust Company and the Civilian Bond Committee, has been prepared and is in the printers’ hands now.
A packet of these with accompanying explanatory letter will be mailed to all M.C.C. constituent group pastors just as soon as these are available from the printer, from which time the plan then becomes operative.
Orie O. Miller,
Secretary of M.C.C.
Ⅱ. How to Use the Plan
Many anxious inquiries have come to us during the past few months, asking whether we had a solution to offer to the growing pressure to buy Defense or War Bonds.
It was necessary for us repeatedly to inform you that nothing was yet developed, but that we were diligently and hopefully employed in an attempt to meet your requirements.
Our hopes, prayers, and labors have at last borne fruit.
We can now offer our people subscriptions to Government Bonds that are not for war purposes.
Provision also is made for the recognition of such subscriptions to alternative bonds, both by church group as well as by county quota.
This opens up an avenue of service for which many of our people have long been hoping.
In the Chicago meeting of , after explanation had been made by the Secretary of the Mennonite Central Committee, it was practically unanimously agreed by all groups represented that we should go ahead with the proposed plan as submitted.
It was further agreed that the M.C.C. should be the implementing agency for the Mennonites and their affiliates.
The further promotion and publicizing of the program was given into the hands of the Peace Section.
The circular which has been prepared will outline in detail the operation of the plan.
These descriptive circulars are being mailed to each minister or pastor on the available mailing list, as furnished us by the various conferences represented in the M.C.C.
If for any reason your pastor does not receive the circulars and application blanks within a few days, we invite you to get in touch with the Mennonite Central Committee, Akron, Pennsylvania.
The Provident Trust Company will receive funds in denominations of $50.00, $100.00 $500.00, or $1000.000 [plus $1.50 for each bond purchased to cover costs of service] to be held by them until the Civilian Bond Committee approves their subscription to a specified Government Bond issue.
When such subscription has been completed and the Treasury Department has made proper registration of the bond, the bond will be returned to the Provident Trust Company, which will in turn forward the bonds to the subscriber or to the person or institution for whom the subscriber ordered it registered.
Anyone so desiring may subscribe to a bond in the name of a charitable institution.
The subscriber may designate a church institution, for example, as the one for whom the bond is to be registered.
Receipt for such subscription would be forwarded to the subscriber.
Such receipt would provide him with evidence of his subscription to government obligations and he would receive credit in the community quota.
Such receipt would also be evidence for income tax deductions.
The bond would be mailed to the institution for which it was subscribed and registered.
The institution would be recipient of the proceeds of the bond at its maturity.
The question of pay-roll allotment plans of certain industrial organizations is also provided for.
The employee concerned may instruct the proper officials of the industrial organization to reserve that part of his pay roll which they ordinarily deduct until sufficient has been accumulated for the purchase of at least a minimum $50.00 bond.
The industrial organization should be instructed to forward such funds with the subscription order form to the Provident Trust Company.
The Provident Trust Company will subscribe the designated funds in the next available issue of bonds as authorized by the Civilian Bond Committee.
If you prefer, you may subscribe through the Defense Bond solicitor in your local community.
In case you use this method, proper precaution should be used to insure the funds being invested through the channels outlined above.
If satisfactory arrangements can be agreed upon with the solicitor, it would probably be helpful in more directly meeting the pressure by local groups for Defense or War Bond purchases.
The Provident Trust Company is not prepared to receive funds in denominations smaller than $50.00.
In cases where individuals are not prepared to subscribe for at least a minimum $50.00 bond but where they desire to have evidence of smaller subscriptions which are possible for them to make, it might be helpful to set up a plan in the local church congregation to put these smaller amounts into a common congregation bond or to be held in trust by the congregation with proper individual receipts.
The specific application of such suggestion would necessarily vary widely with local conditions.
If there are difficulties in the administration of a plan in your local community, or if there are points which are not clear, please address all inquiries to the Mennonite Central Committee…
Jesse W. Hoover,
Secretary, Peace Section.
The rollout had some glitches, as this release from the Peace Section noted:
The expected release on Civilian Government Bonds has again met with unexpected delays.
We are fairly certain that the publicity materials will reach you nearly as soon as this news note, perhaps before.
Should there be a mistake again, we trust that you will be sympathetic with the problem.
There are some things which cannot be hurried.
In addition to the suggestions given in the previous article, a plan is being made available for local congregations to hold in trust the fund of an individual subscriber until sufficient has accumulated for the purchase of a Civilian Government Bond.
It was previously suggested that several individuals might participate in a common Bond, to be registered in the name of one person as trustee of the group.
Or such Bond might be subscribed by the congregation in the name of a properly authorized official.
All this is of course designed to enable the smaller contributor to share in this type of service.
We are in receipt of a copy of a letter from the Peace Section of the Mennonite Central Committee, signed by Bro. O.O. Miller, Executive Secretary, and Bro. Jesse W. Hoover, Peace Section Secretary.
Six items are listed, to be sent to some minister or other leader in each of the Mennonite congregations.
The literature explains in detail the opportunity for conscientious objectors to subscribe for civilian bonds, instead of bonds to finance any enterprise connected with war.
The plan proposed is worthy the consideration of all nonresistant people.
And here are some of the administrative details (from the issue), along with a tally of how many Civilian Bonds had been sold thusfar via the Mennonite Central Committee:
Quite a few of our people seem to be misinformed concerning the service charge on Civilian Bonds.
A service fee is charged by the Fiscal Agent, (Provident Trust Company) at the rate of $1.00 for each subscription of bonds for each individual subscriber.
This does not mean $1.00 for each bond, unless each bond is registered in a different name.
For example, if John Doe wishes to subscribe to a $500 bond for himself, he should forward $500 for the purchase of the bond plus $1.00 service charge.
Likewise, if John Doe wishes to subscribe to $250 of Bonds (for which he will receive three (3) bonds; one at $50 and two at $100), he should forward $250 for the purchase of the bonds plus $1.00 service charge, not $3.00.
Quite a number of orders have come in with remittance of service charge on the basis of $1.00 per bond rather than $1.00 per subscription order.
This necessitates the return of the extra fees by the Provident Trust Company, making added work and expense.
Subscriptions received at the offices of the Provident Trust Company up to from our M.C.C. constituency, totaled $76,160.
Information available from the Treasury Department indicates that it will be two or three weeks before a suitable issue of bonds will be available to which our funds can be subscribed.
A few more details, and another tally, from this Peace Section note by Jesse W. Hoover ():
We would like to emphasize some further points of correction in filling out the Subscription Orders for Bonds.
Please use the full first name and not an initial.
If only the initial is used, it is necessary to write to the subscriber asking for his full name before the order can be entered.
In the case of a wife making a subscription, she would use her own first name.
For example, Mrs. Mary Smith rather than Mrs. John Smith.
Postcard Receipts for subscriptions are sent directly to the individual subscriber rather than to the treasurers or representatives of the groups.
The representatives of Provident Trust Company have agreed that they will write a letter to such treasurers, listing the names registered with the appropriate amounts, which will serve as receipt to the treasurer, if that is desired.
May we suggest that church treasurers, when sending in subscriptions for a number of people, should ask for such letter of recognition from Provident Trust Company.
Subscription orders to date from our M.C.C. constituencies have reached a total of $108,400.00.
The tally continued to rise, as shown in this Peace Section note from Grant M. Stoltzfus ():
A report from the Civilian Bond Committee shows that civilian bonds have been purchased by persons in 150 counties of 28 states during .
During $18,200 worth were purchased and during the amount was $188,300 bringing the total to $206,500.
Subscriptions by Mennonites for totalled $183,150.
Hoover & Miller co-wrote a Peace Section note that described the “Civilian Bonds” it this way: “the Treasury Department is not issuing special bonds for us.
They have only agreed to make available from time to time certain of their regular offerings which are not specifically for war purposes.”
In connection with the Civilian Bond Plan we have been getting a great many inquiries about the rate of interest and maturity dates of these alternate Civilian Bonds.
This is explained in the folder, but perhaps not made sufficiently clear.
One should consistently keep in mind that the Treasury Department is not issuing special bonds for us.
They have only agreed to make available from time to time certain of their regular offerings which are not specifically for war purposes.
It is thus easy to understand that one offering may be entirely different from another.
The Civilian Bond Committee aims to select such issues as will be most suitable to our people and which in a general way compare in interest rate and maturity with current war bond issues.
Usually, however, the interest rate will be somewhat lower.
It is impossible in advance to issue a given rate of interest or any definite maturity date.
To those congregations which have appointed solicitors among their own people, we would like to give one bit of instruction:
It is imperative that the subscriber should sign his own subscription order form when sending in the order to the Provident Trust Company.
One other common difficulty is that our people give the name of their local church or congregation rather than the general church affiliation.
This is confusing.
We urge all who are making out subscription forms to give the general church affiliation rather than the local church.
, the Civilian Bond Committee authorized Provident Trust Company of Philadelphia to invest all funds then on hand in two per cent United States of America Treasury Bonds of .
This particular offering was, however, not available in $50 denominations.
Therefore, only subscriptions of $100 and higher could be invested in this offering.
A total of $233,600 was used in this issue.
Subscribers of $100 or higher whose subscriptions were with Provident Trust Company before should be receiving their registrated bonds shortly.
As of , there was again available at Provident Trust Company a total of $113,650.
Hoover & Miller again coordinated for a Peace Section Note, which reassured readers that their Civilian Bond purchases would be reported to their local war bond czars so that they would get credit for pitching in along with everyone else:
We call attention again to the necessity of having your full name on bond subscriptions.
Bonds cannot be registered with only the initials.
Unless you sign your full name, it only causes delay and added correspondence.
Civilian bond subscriptions continue to come to Provident Trust Company at the rate of about $40,000 per week.
The total subscribed from the beginning of this plan to amounts to $527,100.00.
Approximately eighty-five per cent of this total so far has been from Mennonite sources.
No investment of funds at Provident Trust Company has been authorized since that of .
The Civilian Bond Committee is assured that government issues suitable for these funds will very soon be available.
The Treasury Department representatives have requested and are getting monthly reports of all subscriptions received by Provident Trust Company, and we understand are now making the information available to all county and state Bond Sales Headquarters, concerned.
As of a total of $602,050 worth of Civilian Bonds have been subscribed.
Of this amount $505,800 worth are subscribed by Mennonites.
The remaining subscriptions have been made by Brethren, Quakers, and other peace groups.
Hoover & Miller were back on to explain the latest glitch in the program:
Many inquiries are reaching us as to the reason for the delay in the issuance of bonds.
No suitable issue has been available to us since .
We are at present endeavoring to work out a method that will be a bit more prompt, therefore, more acceptable.
It might be noted, however, that even though subscriptions are uninvested, yet as soon as they reach Provident Trust Company they are recorded on the State and County Quotas.
We get credit for them at once in lieu of war bonds.
Total number of subscriptions for Civilian bonds to Provident Trust Company from beginning to — 5,439.
Total subscriptions in dollars — $774,350.
Of this total subscriptions from Mennonites — $641,650.
Total funds at Provident Trust Company not yet invested in bonds $540,750.
The federal government marketed their Series E U.S. Savings Bonds as “War Savings Bonds.”
The Series F and G bonds, though they served the same purpose, did not carry the “War” or “Defense” marketing slogan.
That was good enough for the “Civilian Bond” promoters, as shown in this Peace Section Note from Jesse W. Hoover:
Inasmuch as the new F and G United States Government Savings Bonds are not designated as “war issues,” they are being used currently by the Civilian Bond Committee for all civilian bond subscriptions to Provident Trust Company.
We understand that the revised printing of the F and G’s is not yet available except through this channel.
In any case, it is the only channel through which the subscriptions for these can be handled and due recognition given to the subscriber’s conscience in the matter of purchasing war bonds and for recognition of the subscription on state and county government bond sales quotas.
The revised civilian bond folder indicates that these issues are available currently in four denominations.
G’s are available in denominations of $100, $500, and $1000.
This piece matures in twelve years — is a registered bond with interest payable semi-annually at the rate of 2½% per annum.
The fourth piece available costs $18.50 and matures in twelve years at $25.00.
The subscription fee of $1.00 continues for all four of these items.
Copies of the revised folder describing the present plan in detail can be ordered from the Mennonite Central Committee, Akron, Pa.
Inasmuch as no $50.00 bonds have been available to the committee, nor promised to be available, a letter has recently gone out from Provident Trust Company, Philadelphia, to all $50.00 piece subscribers indicating how their subscription can be handled in light of the F $18.50 availability or the $100.00 G.
From now on subscribers to Provident Trust Company of any of the foregoing four available pieces will find their subscription promptly handled.
Oridinarily, the government bond certificate should be in the hands of the subscriber within two to three weeks at the longest.
The Civilian Bond Committee is continuing its contacts with the Treasury in an endeavor to procure still more suitable offerings to take care of subscriptions from those who for reasons of conscience cannot subscribe to the war issues.
In the meantime, the arrangement now in effect will, we believe, provide for most of our people and has been approved by the Mennonite Central Committee.
Civilian Bond Subscriptions Total $859,400
Provident Trust Company report as of , shows a total of $859,400.00 in Civilian Bond subscriptions entered at that date.
$712,500.00 of this was subscribed from Mennonite sources.
The total number of subscriptions was 5,948.
Gospel Herald went so far as to promote something of a competition of which state could sell the most “Civilian Bonds” (the magazine would periodically print updated rankings throughout the war):
As of a total of 6,896 bond subscriptions had been made.
These subscriptions totaled $1,063,293.50.
Of this amount $914,440.00 has actually been covered by bond issues, the balance awaiting further issue of government bonds.
Mennonite subscriptions total $818,688.00.
Stoltzfus also tried to answer the question of what made these “Civilian Bonds” different from any other bonds.
The answer: When you buy the bonds through the “Civilian Bond” program, you thereby register a “witness of sensitivity” which indicates “such bonds as having been bought by persons with a conscience against war financing.”
This is selling your conscience mighty cheaply, says I.
Gospel Herald, :
What is the difference between bonds available at local banks and the bonds purchased according to the plan of the Civilian Bond Committee through Provident Trust Co. of Philadelphia[?]
There is a difference and an important one.
Bonds purchased through the church-approved plan are registered with the United States Treasury as having been bought by persons conscientiously unable to finance war.
A witness of sensitivity is thereby made to the government relative to this problem.
This testimony is lost when the bonds are bought locally since the United States Treasury does not recognize such bonds as having been bought by persons with a conscience against war financing.
Do bonds bought through the church-approved plan count on the county quota?
Yes, they do.
Each month the Civilian Bond Committee reports to the United States Treasury the amount of the bond purchases made by conscientious objectors through Provident Trust Co. of Philadelphia.
The Treasury informs the leaders in each county of the purchases thus made by conscientious objectors within their area and in turn the respective leaders can make the necessary adjustments for their counties.
The investments in government securities in the Civilian Bond program totalled $1,602,338.50 as of .
Investments by Mennonite subscribers accounted for $1,260,030.00 of this sum.
As of the above date a total of 10,321 subscription orders have been made for Civilian Bonds from subscribers of the various religious denominations.
During the recent national war bond drive there was a large purchase of government bonds made by our people through the Civilian Bond Program.
In fact the subscriptions for Civilian Bonds were of such volume that subscribers will have to wait a few weeks longer for their bonds than would normally be the case.
The postal card receipts, however, should reach the subscriber about as usual.
The Committee regrets the delay but feels confident of the understanding of our people in the matter.
The “Civilian Bond” program eventually was able to create its own “stamps” with which people could invest gradually, in smaller amounts (Stoltzfus, ):
The Civilian Bond Saving Stamps have been designed for use in the purchase of Civilian Bonds.
As such they correspond to the War Saving Stamps which are used for investment in War Bonds.
The Civilian Bond Saving Stamps were prepared by the Mennonite Central Committee’s Peace Section in response to requests for such stamps.
The Plan
Interested congregations should appoint a treasurer who could well be the regular person handling the Bond or C.P.S. matters.
The congregational treasurer can secure the Stamps (in denominations of $1., 50¢, 25¢, and 10¢) from the treasurer of his respective church group.
Those desiring to purchase Stamps will do so through their local treasurer who will hold the money received from the sale of Stamps until the purchaser submits at least $19.50 worth of Stamps.
This amount will purchase an $18.50 bond and will cover the $1.00 service fee.
Bonds can be registered in the name of the purchaser of a beneficiary and subscribed for through the local treasurer.
(It should be kept in mind that Civilian Bond Saving Stamps are not issued by the government and hence their official recognition may vary with localities.)
The following statistics on Civilian Bond purchases indicates a total of $2,000,263.00 invested up to :
Up to
Total
Total
$1,843,954.50
$156,308.50
$2,000,263.00
Mennonites
1,436,940.00
71,157.50
1,508,097.50
Brethren
213,248.50
67,405.00
280,653.50
Friends
79,622.00
4,918.50
84,540.50
Others
114,144.00
12,827.50
126,971.50
This next update (John H. Mosemann, ) puts the matter amusingly.
The purpose of “Civilian Bonds” is not to allow purchasers to avoid violating their consciences, but to allow them “to register their desire for non-participation in any effort which violates the Christian conscience” (emphasis mine).
This note is the first explicit indication in Gospel Herald that Mennonites were at all conscious of the utter bogosity of the “Civilian Bonds” scheme:
The present increased interest in Civilian Bonds is indicated by a larger volume of inquiries which has been reaching the Akron office.
Many continue to appreciate the opportunity to register their desire for non-participation in any effort which violates the Christian conscience.
The limitations of the present plan are readily recognized but appears to be the only course open for those who are interested in making such purchases in line with our profession.
The drive for the $15,000,000,000 Third War Loan is on at the present time.
Naturally it vitally concerns all those who have conscientious scruples on the matter of taking part in war bond drives and of investing money in this way.
The Peace Section of the Mennonite Central Committee has in the past worked out with the Treasury Department an arrangement for the purchase of Civilian Bonds, with which most of our people are familiar.
We publish herewith a statement released to ministers of the Mennonite Church and the Brethren in Christ Church by the Peace Section.
It gives their viewpoint at the present time.
Following this we print an article by Bro. John M. Snyder who gives another side to the picture.
We print both of these articles in this open forum so that people may be able to get a better grasp of the issues involved in this matter.
“Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5).
Dear Brethren:
Another War Bond campaign will soon begin.
In this connection a few words of information regarding our Civilian Bond program may be helpful.
The plan for investment in Civilian Government Bonds, as arranged by the Mennonite Central Committee, continues essentially as begun, with apparent satisfaction and value to a great many people.
The total in subscriptions now approaches $2,250,000.
We appreciate the response to this alternate method for conscientious investment, which demonstrates to the United States Treasury officials that a considerable group of people have a conscience against war in the matter of finances.
In the new War Bond drive we may expect renewed pressure for purchasing War Bonds.
Mennonite ministers again need to clarify the issues and help our people in their thinking.
Some are confused by local bankers who tell them that the Civilian Bonds purchased through the channels set up by the Committee are just the same as the non-war bonds which are for sale at the local banks.
Technically this is true, but morally there is a vast difference.
All bonds bought through local banks are counted in the War Bond quotas, which means that their purchasers take part directly in the War Bond campaign.
Bonds bought through the Provident Trust in Philadelphia are not counted on the quota, and hence their purchasers do not take part in the War Bond campaign.
What advantage has the Bond Purchase Plan, as sponsored by the M.C.C.?
Simply this: by subscribing through the program provided, we leave a united witness of conscience against war.
The plan is not altogether what was desired at the beginning, but is the best that could be gotten.
Your committee has consistently recognized this, but we have also consistently pointed out that it is a step far in advance of anything achieved heretofore.
By our response and adherence to it we hope eventually to gain greater recognition and respect on this issue.
But these Civilian Bonds are not counted on the quotas, someone objects.
Is this not exactly what our conscience desires?
We do not want to be counted with the war-supporters.
It is true, however, that each county receives a full record of alternative Civilian Bond purchases from the United States Treasury, and accordingly the local quota board knows just what Civilian Bonds have been purchased.
These reports are furnished from the Treasury at Washington, on the basis of the data furnished by our own secretary in the Provident Trust Company office, which are in turn based on the subscriptions of our people.
Thus the local bond quota board knows that we are doing our part in bond-buying and knows that it is not a part of the war campaign.
Should we continue to invest in this way?
We are not a promotion agent of the United States Treasury, and we do not presume to tell our people whether or how much they should invest in Bonds.
But if they do wish to subscribe in Government securities, we believe they should leave a witness of conscience in this matter of war financing.
There is no other way to witness for our position and still purchase government bonds, than the M.C.C. Civilian Bond plan.
Please help your people to understand this and hold the line of conscience firm and clear.
Harold S. Bender, Chairman
Jesse W. Hoover, Secretary
On the Civilian Bond Question
By John M. Snyder
The cost to the United States of this second World War is so tremendous that it staggers the imagination.
Hundreds of millions and billions of dollars are being poured into armaments and the maintenance of armies greater in size and destructive power than anything this world has ever seen.
Words cannot adequately convey, nor can our minds grasp, the stupendousness of the expenditures being made for the prosecution of the war effort.
Where do these vast sums of money come from?
Since the prosecution of the war is a government function, and since our government is primarily not a producing enterprise, it is apparent that the finances for the war program, as well as for the civilian functions of government is authorized by law to obtain funds for carrying on its authorized functions by two principal means, namely, taxation and borrowing.
Ultimately, taxation, used in a broad sense to include various forms of levies upon the property of its subjects and others with whom it maintains trade relationships, etc., is the principal source from which the government must derive the funds to defray the costs which it incurs in the prosecution of its various undertakings.
Concerning the first of these means by which the government obtains needed finances the Scriptural attitude of the Christian is clearly and specifically defined.
The example and teaching of Jesus (Matt. 17:24–27; 22:21) and the teaching of Paul and Peter (Rom. 13:6; Ⅰ Pet. 2:14, 15) make it clear that it is the Christian’s duty to pay taxes levied upon him by the State, even though that State be a military power, as was the case with Rome.
It is not the purpose of this discussion to enter into the principles of the power of governments to tax their subjects.
Suffice it to point out that the State has legal right to confiscate and take possession of property belonging to its subjects in payment of taxes levied, and the New Testament does not dispute this right, but rather admonishes Christians to pay the taxes assessed by the State.
Regarding the second means used by the State to obtain finances the New Testament is not explicit.
In fact, this is not even discussed.
Here the State chooses not to exercise its prerogative of taxation, enforceable by confiscation, but instead calls upon its subjects to loan voluntarily to the government from their accumulated wealth on the promise of the government to repay at a stipulated time.
For this use of the subjects’ money the government offers compensation in the form of interest.
There is no legal compulsion involved here.
The individual retains ownership of the wealth loaned to the State, and it may be fairly assumed, and accompanying responsibility as to the use made of it.
During the first World War our government promoted campaigns for encouraging people to loan money for the prosecution of the war.
It was presented as a patriotic duty for every American to buy war bonds, known as Liberty Bonds, etc.
The majority of Mennonites felt that to aid in the war effort in this way was inconsistent with a nonresistant profession and contrary to the teaching of Scripture.
Despite the pressure of aroused public opinion and even persecution and physical violence, many steadfastly refused to buy these war bonds, though some succumbed to the pressure and yielded the point.
When the shadows of war again fell across our nation there was manifested a conviction on the part of many Peace Church leaders that the nonresistant Christian, being also a loyal citizen, ought to do more than refuse to do what he considered to be wrong.
He ought to find something which he could conscientiously do, and do that with a will, both as a contribution for the benefit of his country, and also as a demonstration of New Testament Christianity as a constructive force for right ends, not only a negative witness against evil.
The C.P.S. Camp program is the outgrowth of efforts to bring about such a constructive witness and contribution in connection with our refusal to accept military service.
This same spirit was a motivating factor in the efforts which were made to find an acceptable alternative to the purchase of war bonds, since it was inevitable that there would again be intensive drives sponsored to promote bond sales for financing the war effort.
Several different possibilities have been explored.
One which has received some recognition is that of making outright contributions to the C.P.S. Camp program, evidenced by the special certificates provided for this purpose by the agencies operating the camps.
A number of states have agreed to accept these contributions in lieu of war bond subscriptions, inasmuch as the expense of of operating these camps would be an obligation to be financed by the Treasury Department if the churches did not assume it, and it is so recognized in a letter written by Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau.
Another proposal was the issuance by the Treasury of special government bonds, the proceeds of which would be earmarked for some purpose acceptable to people of nonresistant faith, such as relief and reconstruction, the alternate work program for conscientious objectors in lieu of military service carried on in the C.P.S. Camps, or other similar projects.
This proposal was not accepted by the government because there is no legal authorization for the issuance of bonds whose proceeds are earmarked in advance for certain specified purposes.
All Treasury borrowings and tax receipts go into the general fund from which Congress makes appropriations as it sees fit, and it would require a special act of Congress to authorize the issuance of such special bonds.
However, this proposal is still being worked upon in the hope that in some way money received from bonds sold to conscientious objectors may still be designated for uses acceptable to the consciences of the subscribers.
A third proposal, and the one which has been endorsed and put into effect, is that the Treasury Department would recognize our objection to buying bonds designated as war bonds, upon which we would be willing to subscribe to bonds issued by the Treasury which are not so designated.
The proceeds of these bonds would go into the same general Treasury fund into which war bond subscriptions are placed and would be appropriated by Congress as it might see fit just as is done with funds received from other sources.
The letter which was duly received from Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau states that the government has some six billion dollars of expenses annually for essential civilian activities and would be willing to have the money subscribed by our people invested in regular Treasury offerings which are not designated as “War Bonds.”
The question in view in this discussion is, “Does this plan, known as the Civilian Bond Plan, satisfy the scriptural objections to subscribing to war bonds?”
The issues involved in war bond subscriptions include the following four points which will be considered briefly in succeeding paragraphs:
The scripturalness, according to the Mennonite viewpoint, of the Christian’s loaning money to the government for financing its program.
The use of the Christian’s money for prosecution of the war effort.
The express, voluntary support of and alignment with the war propaganda by buying “War Bonds” as such.
Control of inflationary tendencies by restricting the present purchasing power of the people of the country, with a view to enlarging future purchasing power at the time the bonds will be redeemed.
The question as to the scripturalness of the Christian’s loaning money to the government for financing its program is not limited in its implications to war financing.
It applies equally to peace-time financing as well.
Should the Christian at any time invest his money in government securities issued to raise funds to finance the costs of government activities?
Two points are suggested here for consideration in connection with this question:
First, there must be considered the Christian’s obligation to promote the spreading of the Gospel with material means — his responsibility of Christian stewardship.
It is the Christian’s primary responsibility in life to make the glorious message of salvation known to man.
And how our present-day world needs this message!
This, and not the armies and armaments now being mustered on the world’s battlefields, offers the effectual solution to the world’s problems.
God’s blessing of His people with abundance of material things is for this purpose and none other.
We have never yet reached the place in the witnessing program of the Church where more funds cannot be used in spreading the Gospel.
And if we ever do seem to have reached it, it will not be because too much has been given or the task is finished.
It will only mean that some of the givers should become goers, giving themselves to the work of spreading the Message of Grace.
In view of the pre-eminent and urgent claim of the witnessing program of the Church upon the material resources of Christians, can we afford — is it right — to divert to the purposes of a secular government the possessions entrusted to our stewardship by God, our control of which is not disputed by our government?
The words of Jesus, “Let the dead bury their dead,” perhaps are applicable here.
For those functions of government which might not be properly characterized among “the dead,” Christians are willing to be taxed, indeed are being taxed.
In the second place, there is the principle held by our Anabaptist forefathers and still maintained by a large body of Mennonites today that it is not for the Chritsian to enter the sphere of political government and help to rule and control the State.
It is this principle which keeps us from exercising our franchise as citizens to vote and hold political office.
Is it consistent to enter with our money a sphere which we cannot enter personally without violation of principle?
Bear in mind that the money remains ours.
We can pay taxes for the support of our government because the State asserts title to the money it collects in taxes and assumes full responsibility for its use.
But we retain title to money loaned to the government, and our responsibility for its use remains.
It is not argued that to loan money makes the creditor responsible for every act and deed of the borrower, but the question is being raised as to the consistency of entering in a financial way a sphere of interest and activity which we confess to be a violation of principle to enter personally.
A more extreme illustration may bring out the issue involved here more clearly.
Suppose a brewer or distiller were to solicit loans among us to finance a liquor manufacturing business.
None of us would question the inconsistency of a Chritsian’s being engaged in such a business.
Would we think it right to invest our money in his nefarious business?
Of course, it is recognized that the two cases are not parallel.
Government is a legitimate, constructive enterprise in its proper sphere, while liquor manufacture for beverage purposes has no such proper sphere.
And yet both have this in common that neither is within the sphere in which we believe it is Scriptural for the Chritsian to engage.
Is it then Scriptural and consistent for us to invest our money in the government enterprise from personal participation in which we hold aloof for conscience’ sake?
The second and third main points constitute the crux of the whole problem which gave rise to the attempt to find an alternative to the buying of war bonds.
They are related and may be briefly considered together.
In this connection it is pertinent to raise this question:
“Do we object to the purchase of war bonds because of their designation as such, or because of the use to which the money subscribed is put?”
Undoubtedly the answer is, “Both.”
There is likely to be little disagreement as to our attitudes on these points.
We do not want our money to be used for war purposes, and we do not want to support or align ourselves with the war propaganda by buying bonds designated as “War Bonds.”
The issues here are clear, and the answer of the Mennonite conscience is definite.
The fourth main point touches an area in which most of us find ourselves on unfamiliar ground.
The complexities of our involved economic system are pretty much of a puzzle to us who are not experts in the study of economic laws and theories.
There is even some ground for suspicion that the experts, especially those who disregard the Bible and its teachings in their theorizing, are not always as clear on some of these economic problems as they might wish to be.
Certainly we regard inflation, with its resultant depression and inequitable distribution of wealth, entailing hardship and suffering upon the masses, as an evil to be averted if possible.
And other things being equal, if our government asks us to follow a course of action which its most competent advisers believe will forestall a postwar inflation and depression, we should willingly comply with such a request.
Only if the course outlined should involve a violation of Scriptural principles would we be warranted in withholding our co-operation.
In the case of war bonds we cannot co-operate because of our conscience against contributing to the war effort, as well as the feeling of some that they should not make loans of any sort to the government.
Having considered some of the objections to purchasing war bonds, let us now revert to the question raised earlier in this discussion, viz., “Does the Civilian Bond Plan satisfy the Scriptural objections to subscribing to war bonds?”
As to the first main point raised it is obvious that any valid objection to buying war bonds on the grounds set forth in the discussion of this point would also apply to civilian bonds, since the point is general and not limited to wartime financing.
The fact that the plan does not entail the purchase of “War Bonds” as such satisfies the objection presented in the third main point, that of the propaganda aspect of war bond subscriptions.
Secretary Morgenthau’s letter specifically recognizes our conscience on this point.
It is held by sponsors of the present plan that the plan not only does not contribute to war propaganda, but that it bears a positive witness to a conscience against contributing to the war effort.
That the plan does register a conviction against buying “War Bonds” will not be gainsaid.
However, in the light of the discussion which follows on the use of the money derived from civilian bond subscriptions, it may be questioned whether this witness is nullified at least in the minds of people who give it sufficient thought to inquire into this phase.
If the witness value of the plan rests on the failure of the public to inquire into the implications of our course of action, then it can hardly be said to be a sound course of action for us to take.
Regarding the fourth main point, the civilian bonds would be as effective in control of inflation as any other type of bond, so that if the idea of bond purchases for this purpose is approved the civilian bonds offered would also be acceptable.
However, if the Mennonite Church is interested in promoting an anti-inflationary effort on the part of its members it might be well as a preliminary step to sponsor an exhaustive study of other possible means for accomplishing the desired result, some of which might possibly be free from undesirable characteristics of the bond purchase proposal.
There remains yet to be considered the second main point, namely, the use to which the proceeds of subscriptions to civilian bonds will be put, which constitutes one of the two principal objections advanced against buying war bonds.
Let us examine the plan from this angle:
In the first place, we note that Secretary Morgenthau’s letter calls attention to the fact that “the Treasury needs some six billion dollars annually to maintain civilian services of the government which are essential to the basic needs of human life, to conserve our natural resources, and to keep in repair our national plant.”
The wording of the letter creates the impression at first glance that money subscribed under this plan would be used to finance these civilian functions.
However, careful examination of the Secretary’s statements makes it clear that he carefully refrained from making any such commitment that it would be so used.
The reason lies in the fact that he has no authority to make such a commitment.
He can only receive these funds into the general treasury and disburse them according to the direction of Congress.
It might be argued here that it is the normal procedure for the government to finance its normal and essential civilian activities principally by taxation, and such extraordinary expenditures as cannot be met from this source are financed temporarily by government borrowings.
Since the taxes collected by our government currently amount to more than six billion dollars annually we might therefore assume that these charges for essential civilian services are already provided for before we are asked to contribute to the government’s finances through bond subscriptions.
Even if tax receipts were insufficient to cover this six billion dollars there remains the fact that there are financial institutions and other investors who normally in peacetime buy government bonds and thus provide all the funds necessary to finance peacetime expenditures.
These regular bond investors have not withdrawn from the picture.
Now, in the face of an extraordinary demand for funds for prosecution of the war, can it logically be supposed that the receipts from these regular sources are diverted for our convenience to others uses and the proceeds of this newly inaugurated Civilian Bond Plan substituted for them as the means of financing the six billion dollars?
The assumptions of the above argument can probably not be substantiated.
Due to the intangible nature of our medium of exchange, which in the last analysis usually simmers down to a transfer of credit rather than the transfer of physical wealth itself, it is impossible to trace any certain dollar through the Treasury to its ultimate use.
Therefore we are probably not justified in saying that none of the proceeds of civilian bonds actually go into the financing of civilian activities.
But if we cannot be certain that all our bond money goes to war financing, as is assumed in the preceding paragraph, then by the same token we have no grounds for assuming that none of it goes there.
The most we can justifiably assume is that our contributions, along with all other receipts of the government, are divided between civilian and military uses in the proportion which each bears to the total expenditures of the government, since they are all mixed up together in the same pot.
In the present situation, when our President announces that the government this year will need to raise one hundred billion dollars to finance its program, it is obvious that the proportion of essential civilian expenses will be extremely small in relation to the whole.
The Secretary’s letter does not explicitly recognize our desire that the money subscribed under the Civilian Bond Plan be not used to finance the war effort.
And we have no such official recognition in writing from any government representative.
Even if the government were to offer such recognition without assurance that the funds would not be so used, it would be of doubtful value so far as our position is concerned.
It seems clear from the preceding paragraph that Civilian Bond funds are used in exactly the same way as War Bond funds.
In fact, most of the offerings in the recent war bond drive were not designated as “War Bonds,” but were “civilian bonds” propagandized as “War Bonds.”
The Civilian Bond Plan offers some of the same issues offered in the war bond drive, and Civilian Bond Plan subscriptions go to fill the quotas set by the Treasury as necessary for financing the war program.
There has, furthermore, been given official recognition in another connection by the Mennonite Central Committee to the fact that funds which go into the general Treasury without specific designation for other uses are used to promote the war effort.
The objection to the turning of emergency farm labor wages earned by C.P.S. men over to the Treasury is referred to.
Here is a case in which the pressure of public sentiment has not been a factor to influence our thinking, and in this case we have objected to turning over to the general Treasury certain funds on the specific grounds that funds so turned over would be a contribution to the war effort.
And yet the funds raised by Civilian Bond subscriptions have no more guarantee of not being used to finance the war program than do the funds raised by labor of C.P.S. men.
Is it possible that we have accepted a specious line of wishful reasoning in our desire to provide an acceptable alternative to the purchase of war bonds, thus sparing ourselves the unpleasantness of an aroused public opinion due to refusal to buy war bonds?
Have we proceeded on the basis of a fiction created in our own minds and not even participated in by the government to the extent of offering us an unofffcial assurance that our funds would be used only for civilian purposes?
It appears that we have come to a position similar to that of a boy who protests that he doesn’t want to go swimming, and then justifies his swimming excursion in violation of his father’s command by the fact that the boys in the gang solemnly recognized his laudable desire not to go swimming, all the while urgently pressing him to come along.
We are co-operating with the government in its announced intention to finance the war with public bond subscriptions, satisfying our consciences with the reflection that “we said we didn’t want to go,” and that the government seemed to be sympathetically understanding in recognition of our desires.
Why should they not be sympathetic when by so doing they attain the ends which they set out to accomplish, namely, the raising of a certain amount of money to finance the costs of the war program?
Do we not, like the boy, nullify our stated intentions by our action in pouring our funds into the purse which pays the war bills?
I’m glad somebody had the nerve to speak up.
That said, the money kept rolling in.
Irvin B. Horst offered this update:
The following statistics indicate Civilian Bond subscriptions according to the fifteen highest states as of .
The total amount subscribed by all states was $2,748,289.00
Pennsylvania
$667,239.00
Illinois
442,096.00
Ohio
359,625.50
Kansas
253,394.50
Iowa
249,194.00
Indiana
179,271.00
California
85,106.00
Virginia
69,615.00
South Dakota
60,250.50
New York
48,956.50
Nebraska
39,792.50
Oklahoma
37,792.50
Oregon
30,628.50
Minnesota
27,944.50
Missouri
16,722.50
And he also noted that in Canada (as of ) some $2 million dollars had been contributed for “non-interest bearing certificates” and “Victory Loan Bonds with a sticker attached (designating the use of the funds for relief work)”.
A further update noted that “The total amount subscribed by Mennonites in Civilian Bonds as of was $2,205,796.00.
The amount subscribed by all groups was $3,097,475.00.”
Civilian Bond Sales:
During the period of [1944], 368 subscriptions were registered by the Provident Trust Company, amounting to $68,892.
Of this amount $43,660 was subscribed by Mennonites.
In the issue Irvin B. Horst acknowledged the “not entirely satisfactory” nature of the “Civilian Bonds” program — and for the first time also acknowledged that some Mennonites might “feel that they cannot buy civilian bonds” — and he promised negotiations were underway for something better (spoiler alert: nothing better was in fact on the way):
During the coming Fifth War Loan Drive, , civilian bonds will again be available for conscientious objectors.
The plan remains the same as in other drives.…
Savings stamps and albums in various denominations are also available for school children and others.
Civilian Bonds are Series F and G bonds registered through the Provident Trust Comapny.
While the same series may be secured through local channels, Provident Trust Company is the only fiscal agent authorized to register them as “conscience money.”
Civilian bond subscriptions are officially reported to county chairmen and there should be no difficulty to buy them in lieu of war bonds.
The civilian bond plan is not entirely satisfactory and negotiations are under way to secure a more satisfactory plan. Until a better arrangement is secured, the plan will remain as before.
To members who feel that they cannot buy civilian bonds, relief certificates and stamps are recommended.
Relief certificates and stamps are, however, donations and not investments.
As of , “Civilian Bond” subscriptions totaled $4,527,748.50; $3,286,315.50 of that came from Mennonite or Brethren in Christ groups.
By the total had climbed to $4,769,673.00.
An unsigned editorial, in the edition, titled “Let Us Pray” bemoaned the fact that “Somewhere between thirty and fifty per cent of our young men have accepted military service, even though the government has made it possible for the church to maintain a system of nonmilitary alternative service.
Others of the brotherhood are entangled in the war effort through employment in defense plants and the voluntary purchase of war bonds.”
So even with the silly “Civilian Bonds” making such an option relatively painless, some Mennonites were not going along with the doctrinal nonresistance position.
Efforts to come up with something meaningful that could replace the policy of purchasing ordinary U.S. Savings Bonds and calling them “Civilian Bonds” went nowhere, according to this Peace Section Note from Jesse Hoover ():
The Peace Section has been trying for several months to interest the Treasury Department in a special Relief Savings Bond to finance the Congressional appropriation for United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Association.
Recently we received what appears to be the final reply from the Treasury officials.
There does not seem to be any prospect of obtaining such an issue.
With the probability of another Bond Drive in the not too far distant future, we will have nothing more to offer our churches than the plan followed previously.
And while it has not been entirely satisfactory to many of our people, we do want to urge again that if investments are made in government securities, we should leave our testimony of nonsupport of war by registering such investments through Provident Trust Company, by the plan which has been in operation.
Two more tallies:
As of the cumulative total of civilian bond subscriptions was $5,009,059.50; from Mennonites, $3,629,456.00. As of those numbers had risen to $6,501,627.14 and $4,706,026.50.
The issue announced the end of the “Civilian Bonds” program:
Inasmuch as the current bond drive, which officially came to a close , is the final war bond drive, the M.C.C. Executive Committee agreed on to a proposal that the civilian bond plan arrangement be terminated.
The civilian bond plan was the result of negotiations, in , of a Civilian Bond Committee with the U.S. Treasury Department and was an arrangement whereby persons who felt unable to purchase war bonds could subscribe to Government securities.
According to a summary of subscriptions under this plan, the amount of securities purchased as of , was $6,604,675.64.
Of this amount, $4,786,276.50 was subscribed by Mennonites, $1,103,800.00 by Brethren, $322,046.64 by Friends, and the remaining $392,552.50 by other groups.
A full report of subscriptions will be released at a later date.
As announced earlier, the Civilian Bond plan terminated on .
During the time the plan was in operation 33,006 subscriptions were made; these subscriptions amounted to $6,740,161.14. Of this total, $4,911,277.00 were subscribed by Mennonites; $1,108,592.50 by Brethren; $323,246.64 by Friends; and $397,045.00 by all other groups.
when the “Civilian Bonds” program was in effect, the vast majority of money the U.S. government was receiving from taxes and bond sales was being spent on its war effort.
By purchasing “Civilian Bonds,” Mennnonites in the United States contributed over $4 million to prosecuting the war, while congratulating themselves all the while on having registered “our testimony of nonsupport of war” with each bond purchase.
This is the seventh in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
We are now up to the post-World War Ⅱ period and the Cold War is about to ramp up.
Harold S. Bender gets us started with “Forward into the Postwar World with our Peace Testimony” (), which gives us some perspective on how wobbly the Mennonite nonresistance doctrine was even in regards to military service:
[O]f all the Mennoite men who were drafted, forty-one per cent entered the army and fifty-nine per cent stood by the faith of the New Testament and the Mennonite Church and went into C.P.S.
To be exact, thirty per cent went straight into the army, ten into noncombatant service, and sixty per cent into C.P.S.
In , Ford Berg took a hard line on Romans 13 in “The Christian’s Obligation to the Government”, disputing in particular the idea that Paul’s advice to the Romans was given during a placid period of Nero’s reign and so shouldn’t be taken to apply to all governments at all times.
(See yesterday’s Picket Line in which Edward Yoder tried to advance that gambit.)
When Christ was questioned about the paying of tribute (taxes) He answered, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s” (Luke 20:25).
We have no record of an unco-operative spirit or a voiced undertone of resentment on Christ’s part concerning the payment of taxes.
But what this tells me is that there were Mennonites out there who were chipping away at the Christians-Always-Pay-Their-Taxes edifice, enough so that the defenders of the orthodoxy felt it necessary to write such rebuttals.
There was a question of whether or not Mennonites should participate in blood drives run by the Red Cross, as the agency was apparently still doing this in a “race”-segregated way (e.g. only giving “white” plasma to “white” recipients) that was offensive to Mennonite teachings on common humanity.
Ford Berg, in the issue, compared this to the relative lack of reluctance Mennonites had paying their taxes for war:
[I]f we are so touchy on this thing, perhaps we should recall that our tax money goes largely for war purposes, to which we carelessly respond that we are not responsible after we make our payments.
Dare we apply this reasoning to the blood donations also?
Both seem inconsistent, and yet…
Forty-eight men and women, including eight Protestant clergymen, in various parts of the nation refused to file Federal income tax returns as a protest against “bomb building” and war, it was announced by the Tax Refusal Committee of Peacemakers, a national pacifist group.
“President Truman’s decision to begin the manufacture of the hydrogen bomb makes us even more determined than before to refuse to finance armaments.
Building this newest and most terrible weapon is further indication of the extreme depth of moral degradation into which our nation has sunk.”
As with the coverage in The Mennonite around this time, the first mentions of war tax resisters are those from outside the Mennonite community.
There is clearly some interest in this sort of witness or direct action, but it takes a while before Mennonites themselves put themselves forward.
Here’s another example, from the issue:
Twenty-five Quaker residents of Fair Hope, Alabama, have decided to emigrate to Costa Rica so that they may be free from military demand and from paying “war taxes.”
Said their spokesman, “Our economy has become so involved with military effort throughout the world, that a person can hardly make a living here without being a part of that system.”
A spokesman for the American Friends Service Committee said this would be the first instance in American history that a group of Quakers had left the country because of their religious pacifist convictions.
[W]e cannot apply our labor, money, business, factories, nor resources in any form to war or military ends, either in war finance or war industry, even under compulsion.
[I]n wartime, as well as in peacetime, we shall endeavor to continue to live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty; avoid joining in the wartime hysteria of hatred, revenge, and retaliation; and manifest a meek and submissive spirit, being obedient to the laws and regulations of the government in all things, including the usual taxes, except when obedience would cause us to violate the teachings of the Scriptures and our conscience before God.
The issue included an article on “Nonresistance in Eighteenth Century Pennsylvania” by M. Alice Weber that related the story of the war-tax-related Funkite schism in the early American Mennonite community, and also mentioned Quaker refusal to pay war taxes.
The first instance I saw of a Mennonite suggesting that Mennonites should take action to address the problem of their taxes going to the military was in the article “Give Caesar — Give God” by Christian L. Graber in the issue.
Excerpt:
A large part of the Federal Taxes are used to support the military budget.
If we do not deduct all that the government allows us to deduct, but rather pay a higher tax than we would need to pay, we are to the extent of such overpayment lending our voluntary support to the military program.
Good stewardship forces us to face this issue.
But this idea was taken as a reductio ad absurdum by Barney Ovensen, who was defending nonresistance against another Christian who was arguing that Christians should not be pacifistic (“Why It Is Not Right for a Christian to Fight”, ).
Excerpt:
McQuilkin says the man who pays taxes is just as guilty of killing as the man who actually joins the army and kills.
If this is true, every Christian is guilty — for we all are told to pay taxes to “Caesar.”
But where did McQuilkin learn this doctrine?
From Christ?
Of course not.
From the apostles?
No.
It is an awful thing to use the wisdom of this world in order to make void the “foolishness” of God.
For the third year in succession a woman pastor at Great Barrington, Massachusetts, has paid only 25 per cent of her federal income tax, because she is opposed to the large percentage of the national income used for war.
In a letter accompanying her tax return this lady says, “I cannot conscientiously pay more of my tax because at least that proportion of our national income is now used for war.
I believe it is wrong to kill human beings.
I believe that today war only increases the evils we are fighting and it will, if we persist in it, degrade us, destroy our liberties and our spiritual values, and eventually destroy us and our civilization.”
In the past two years a lien was placed against this pastor’s salary to collect the unpaid tax.
Probably the same method will be used again this year.
A series of notices in , , , and noted with alarm what a high percentage “of the taxpayer’s dollar” in the U.S. was devoted to military spending.
The annual sessions of the Virginia Conference, held , passed a resolution that indicates the attitude of unconcern was still dominant:
Resolved, That we gratefully acknowledge the sincere efforts of our government to provide for the welfare of its citizens; that we counsel our people to pay their taxes cheerfully…
An editorial by Paul Erb in the issue, “On Paying Taxes,” seemed to acknowledge that war tax resistance was in the air — not approving of it, but indicating that in any case there was a right and wrong way to go about it.
In our obedience to law, we reserve the right to obey God rather than man, if we are asked to do something contrary to our consciences.
But we do not think it is wrong to pay lawfully imposed taxes and customs, even tough some of the money maybe used for purposes which we cannot approve, like military preparations and war.
If anyone has conscientious scruples about paying taxes, he should be honest and aboveboard about it.
Certainly a Christian could never justify dishonest tax or import reports.
Yet a brother who is in business writes us of his certain knowledge that some Mennonites falsify their reports, and cheat the government out of some thousands of dollars.
“The Christian and the State” by Wilbur J. Miller, found in the issue, reiterated the traditional hard line on Romans 13.
“Mennonites and Bomb Tests” by Ronald & Elaine Rich () matter-of-factly presented war tax resistance as a possible Christian option:
Christians have responded to the challenge of this issue in various ways.
A few have refused to pay the proportion of their tax that is used for military purposes.
Some have voluntarily limited their income to the low level that is tax exempt.
I assume the following note, found in the issue, again refers to A.J. Muste:
A Presbyterian clergyman in New York has refused for the fourth consecutive year to pay the major part of his income taxes which he says are earmarked for military expenditures.
He pays only 20 per cent of his taxes and gives the rest to charities.
“The time has come,” he says, “when responsible clergymen must join in a common protest against the government’s present suicidal policy of reliance on military might.”
A Presbyterian pacifist minister who refused to pay the part of his federal income tax which he felt would be used for war purposes is now serving a six-month term at Federal Prison camp at Allenburg, Pa.
I’m not sure what if anything was behind the reluctance to mention his name.
A “Sunday School Lesson” (Alta Mae Erb again) in the issue asserted that when Jesus asked his interrogators to show him a coin, and then gave his Render Unto Caesar answer, what he meant by all that was:
“With these coins they paid their poll tax.
Jesus meant that this tax was among the things of Caesar.”
On , Melvin Gingerich testified before a Senate committee on a military conscription bill.
His testimony included the following phrase:
“We who have uneasy consciences because of the disproportionate share of our tax money which is going into military expenditures in contrast to that which is going into nonmilitary foreign aid…”
This, I thought, was a long way from Romans 13 and its insistence that Christians pay their taxes not grudgingly but “for conscience’ sake,” and shows how that norm was shifting.
Amish Farmers and the Social Security Tax
While this was going on, there was another tax resistance fight in the greater Anabaptist community.
The Amish, who placed a high value on mutual aid and on reliance on God and who therefore did not purchase insurance, were resistant to being roped in to the federal government’s Social Security system.
Many refused to apply for benefits.
Some refused to pay withholding taxes.
The first mention of this I noticed was this, from the issue:
The Federal International Revenue Service [sic] has ordered the seizure of livestock of Amish farmers in certain Ohio counties.
These farmers have refused to pay taxes which go for social security, which the Amish are opposed to.
Other mentions of this conflict included:
— the Amish farmers bought their horses back from middlemen who had bought them at a tax auction
— a bill was introduced that would exempt Amish from Social Security
— Amish refuse refund of overplus from auctions of their goods
— Amish petition government for an exemption from the Social Security law
— the Amish reportedly win such an exemption (but this turns out to be exaggerated)
— three work horses are seized from an Amish farmer for back taxes
— letters of protest hit the local papers after an Amish farmer’s horses are seized for taxes
— the IRS announces a crackdown on Amish social security tax resisters
— the IRS announces a moratorium on seizures from Amish Social Security resisters, and a Senator goes on record siding with the Amish on this
— debate on a possible exemption continues in Congress
— a Gospel Herald editorial sympathizes with with Amish resisters
and — more exemption legislation is proposed
— apparently they’re still debating whether or how much to exempt the Amish from Social Security in Congress
This is the eighth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
Up until now, war tax resistance has either been treated as unscriptural and therefore unthinkable, or as a curious practice that a few particularly conscientious people from other Christian sects were experimenting with.
But in something snapped, and the Gospel Herald began to consider it as a possible Mennonite response.
The issue noted that the closely-related Anabaptist cousins, the Church of the Brethren had turned the payment of taxes for military purposes into a problem that Christians needed to solve or work around:
Church of the Brethren leaders will approach government agencies in the interest of finding a “positive alternative” to the payment of taxes for military purposes.
The Brotherhood Board voted to make explorations “with the appropriate agencies of government to the end that an acceptable constructive alternative be provided for all those persons who by reason of religious training and belief conscientiously object to the payment of that portion of income taxes going for military defense.”
Several members of the Board pointed out that this matter would be much more complicated than arrangements already in effect for alternatives to military service, but the Board felt all possible explorations should be made.
The Mennonite Central Committee put this on the agenda at its Executive Committee meeting :
[The MCC Executive Committee actions included] Referring to Peace Section the invitation from the Church of the Brethren to study whether there might be a positive alternative provided by the U.S. government for persons conscientiously opposed to paying that portion of income taxes going for military defense.
Harold S. Bender did not address this tax problem directly, in his essay “When May Christians Disobey the Government?”
This may be meaningful because this was a time when war tax resistance was clearly in the air and because when Bender had been given the opportunity in the 1930s and 1940s, he had said unequivocally that Christians pay their taxes period.
Bender did, though, take a very conservative line on civil disobedience in general:
Jesus taught His disciples to “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21), thus stating a principle which goes far beyond the question of tax payment which was immediately at issue.
The Christian owes allegiance and obedience to two sovereignties, both in good conscience.
He must decide in all conscientiousness and earnestness when his allegiance to God requires disobedience to regularly constituted governmental authority and cheerfully take the consequences.
Opinion that a law or a requirement of the state is unwise or undesirable cannot be a ground of disobedience.
There may be wide divergence as to whether legislation is good or bad or whether governmental policies are helpful or harmful to the general welfare.
The Christian’s overriding obligation is to obey, even while he may seek to persuade or convince the authorities to change the law.
What then are the conditions requiring disobedience?
Certainly the Christian must disobey (1) when he is required to perform an act which is clearly forbidden in Scripture or is a dear implication from such a prohibition (military training or service would be a case in point), and (2) when he is forbidden to do what the Scripture or the clear implications of it require.
In other words, the subject matter of an act required by the state must clearly be an evil in itself, which then becomes a sin when performed.
We must consider it a sin to disobey the government (in the light of the above-cited N.T. teachings) unless a sinful act is required.
The Christian is not at liberty to disobey the government for his own ulterior purposes, no matter how good these purposes may be in themselves…
Nonresistant Christians cannot justify disobedience to law merely because they have good ends in view.
In the light of the above, it would appear that the desire to witness to the truth or against an evil cannot be a ground to disobey the requirements of the state which in themselves are not wrong.
Nor may the supposed relative effectiveness of several kinds of witness be a ground for employing the type of witness that involves disobedience, rather than a type that is free of such disobedience.
For example, Bender wrote, in the case of conscription, it is not sinful to accept conscription into civilian service, so Christians must accept this if it is demanded.
Registration is also not sinful, so Christians must register.
If forced into military service, though, the Christian must refuse to obey.
Refusal to register is a form of witness against the military, not a proper example of Christian refusal to commit a sinful act, and so it’s not an appropriate occasion for disobedience.
This distinction is worth keeping in mind as we move forward, as some Mennonite war tax resisters will come to defend their resistance as a form of witness against an over-militarized state, while others will defend theirs as a form of conscientious objection against (indirect) military service.
When the Mennonite Central Committee issued its Annual Report, the “Peace Witness” section made note of the growing concern among Mennonites about the propriety of paying for the military by means of taxes:
Emerging throughout our constituency is a growing uneasiness concerning our witness against such problems as discrimination, militarism, and war, in view of the frightful consequences these might have today.
Concern is evident in discussions about possible participation in various protest actions and about the propriety of paying income taxes that are used so largely for war purposes, as well as the suggestion that perhaps nonregistration would be a clearer testimony against conscription and militarism.
Serious discussion on the question of whether the nonresistant Christian can in good conscience pay income taxes which go so heavily for war purposes has continued.
Some decided the time had come to press the point.
“A Concerned Member” had this to say in the issue:
Would you believe that Mennonites are giving many times more for military purposes than for missions?
Sixty per cent of your income tax money each year goes for defense and yet per member we give only about $20 each year for missions.
A.J. Muste, well-known pacifist leader, has lost a court battle in his refusal to pay income tax because some portion might go toward the nation’s military establishment.
United States Tax Court has ruled that Mr. Muste must pay back taxes plus a variety of penalties.
The opinion stressed that Congress has specifically provided military service exemption for conscientious objectors, but has taken no similar action in the income tax field.
Andrew R. Shelley was among the first Gospel Herald writers to try to provide a solution for concerned Mennonites.
He proposed using legal deductions for charitable donations (which were apparently more generous then than they are today) to reduce or eliminate income tax liability ():
Practically all thinking people are disturbed about the arms race in our world.
This does not mean there is common agreement as to exactly what should be done about it.
In the United States many people of various denominations, and some who do not claim to be Christians, are very much concerned over the proportion of the national budget which goes for military purposes.
There have been those who have felt that Christian people should withhold the portion of the tax which goes for military purposes.
These people reason that to pay the tax is a violation of conscience.
Our government has been petitioned numbers of times to provide an alternative to paying tax for military purposes.
During World War Ⅱ the Canadian government did provide what was called a “Sticker Bond.”
This meant that a conscientious objector, if he desired that his money be used for other than war purposes, could request that a sticker be attached to his bond which would indicate that the money was to be used for nonmilitary purposes of government.
While this eased the conscience of the conscientious objector, it was purely a bookkeeping matter as far as the government was concerned, because it provided for essential phases of the work of the government.
Recently in various periodicals there have appeared letters and articles regarding the paying of the portion of tax that goes for military purposes.
It has appeared to me that one phase of the solution of the problem has been overlooked in almost all of the letters and articles which I have read.
In our desire to find a full solution to the problems involved we should not be unmindful of that which we do have in our power to do.
The government of the United States is the most liberal government in the world in regard to giving recognition for giving to charitable purposes.
Our government allows a tax deduction of 30 per cent for charitable giving.
(The last 10 per cent must be given to certain phases of charity which fall into the category of the general giving of Christian people.)
All of us are aware of the unnatural and unwholesome nature of American living.
Yet, most Christian people choose to go along with this way of life which even many non-Christian leaders say is unwholesome.
It is possible for Christian people to sharply reduce the amount of tax which they pay for military purposes through the simple and legal expedient of charitable giving.
Here, our government gives us the marvelous opportunity to choose that phase of charitable giving to which we desire our money to go.
While it is certainly true that not all Christian families can give 30 per cent of their income to charitable purposes, certainly those in average circumstances can do so.
(Those in higher income brackets can go far beyond this.)
It is at once evident that we need not go along with some of the extremely wasteful practices of the American public.
For every hundred dollars more that the Christian family gives to the work of the church, they can save twenty dollars’ tax and approximately fifteen dollars which would go into the general category of military spending (on the basis of 20 per cent taxation).
Consequently, it would seem that those directly concerned with the problem of taxation for military purposes would go the very limit in reducing the amount of money which they give to military purposes through taxation.
For those who are concerned about this matter, I would urge that careful records be kept of every phase of living having to do with taxes.
Thus it will be seen that through careful expenditure of the money God has entrusted to us, it is astounding how much we can give to the work of the Lord.
Think of the prospects; the positive aspect of our modern America is the privilege of living full lives and yet giving largely to the work of the Lord.
I would like to clearly state that this is not the highest motivation for giving.
We give fundamentally not because we want to pay less tax, but primarily because we love the Lord and we want His work to go forward.
It is startling and it is wonderful that at this juncture of the history of the world, when the needs are great and the opportunities are beyond description, the Lord has granted us the greatest resources in the history of mankind.
We can send forth the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Certainly without Him there can be no peace.
Without the saving grace of salvation which has been brought through the shed blood of Christ, there can be no lasting peace.
Among the various things that might be said, we must realize that the primary consideration is the sending forth of the Gospel.
While this approach does not answer the total problem with which we began this letter, it does mean that we are beginning at a point where we have control.
And from this point, which takes no more time than any other approach that we might use, we can do what we feel led to do further.
But let us begin at this point and I am sure whatever else we do will be observed with greater sympathy than if we do not start at this point of personal involvement.
All of us believe it is right and proper that we should support many phases of our government.
Whatever our differences may be on the attitude toward taxation in relation to the military part of our budget, certainly we recognize the need for government.
We recognize our responsibilities. Rom. 13.
Consequently, we gladly participate in that part of our government’s program which is essential for the welfare of our people.
A civilly disobedient war tax resister from the Church of the Brethren — Charles E. Zunkel — hit the pages of Gospel Herald on :
Charles E. Zunkel of Port Republic, Va., former moderator of the Church of the Brethren, wrote to President Kennedy and to the director of Internal Revenue that he and his wife would no longer pay a major portion of their federal income tax because 75 per cent of it goes for military purposes.
He wrote that they would continue filing their income taxes, but would pay only 25 per cent of the amount.
The remainder would be given to the church in quarterly payments, in addition to the 15 per cent or more which they already give.
He writes that they hope some alternative tax plan may be worked out whereby conscientious objectors may give their tax money to peaceable pursuits just as young men serve in alternative service in lieu of the military service.
Finally, a poem by Rachel Horst, found in the edition, and titled “Render to Caesar” suggested that the Render Unto Caesar quotation was being abused by people who prefer Caesar to Christ:
He spoke the words, Himself, not long ago
While looking at a craven face upon the coin.
We paid our tax with hatred to a hated man
And waved palms for a King of love,
Whose throng we hoped to join.
We shout the words from raucous throats today
While looking at a regal face upon the cross.
We acclaim the kingship of a loathsome man
As we renounce the Sovereign
Without a thought of loss.
There was a bit of a gap in coverage of war tax resistance issues for the rest of the year that coincided with John Drescher taking over the editorship from Paul Erb in (I don’t know if there’s any connection).
But then things heated up, as a genuine Mennonite declared himself a civilly disobedient war tax resister in .
Tune in tomorrow!
This is the ninth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
began with a bombshell.
John Howard Yoder, who would become a very influential Mennonite ethicist and political philosopher (but who at the time was just finishing off his doctorate and working as part-time instructor), dropped his essay “Why I Don’t Pay My Taxes” in Gospel Herald readers’ laps.
The Mennonite reprinted the essay, and I reproduced it here when I was going through the back issues of that magazine (see ♇ 17 July 18) so I won’t do so again today.
In Gospel Herald, the essay, which appeared in the issue, was preceded by this editorial disclaimer:
In A Declaration of Christian Faith and Commitment with Respect to Peace, War, and Nonresistance, which was adopted by General Conference in as the official statement of the church on the question, we find this sentence:
“Though we recognize fully that God has set the state in its place of power and ministry, we cannot take part in those of its functions or respond to any of its demands which involve us in the use of force or frustrate Christian love; but we acknowledge our obligation to witness to the powers-that-be of the righteousness which God requires of all men, even in government, and beyond this to continue in earnest intercession to God on their behalf.”
The statement on The Christian Witness to the State adopted by General Conference in contains this sentence:
“The evils of war, particularly in this nuclear age, must ever be pressed upon the consciences of statesmen.”
The article by John H. Yoder which follows is the testimony of a brother who has come to the conviction that for him a necessary witness to the state is not to pay voluntarily all of one’s federal income tax (although in no way obstructing its forcible collection by the state), since so much of this tax goes for war purposes.
Neither General Conference nor the Peace Problems Committee have said that the Christian witness against war must include this procedure.
To some, no doubt, it will seem that the procedure taken is contrary to New Testament teaching.
To this position, however, Bro. Yoder has an answer which he believes is right.
Believing that his answer deserves prayerful consideration by all who disagree, as well as by any who might be sympathetic, the Peace Problems Committee is submitting it for publication.
Both the author and the committee will welcome further discussion of the question in the same spirit with which it is here presented.
The Peace Problems Committee:
Guy F. Hershberger, Secretary.
(At the suggestion of the editor of the Peace and War Page, the following statement is made in the form of a purely personal testimony, such as was presented to the Peace Problems Committee of the General Conference of the Mennonite Church in .
The writer bears no responsibility to represent the Mennonite Church as an organization or the Peace Problems Committee in the position he has taken nor in the reporting of it.)
It’s worth noting that Yoder defined his war tax resistance largely in terms of “witness” rather than conscientious objection:
“The idea,” he wrote, “is not to avoid involvement in the evils of this fallen world, to ‘keep my hands clean’ morally…
My concern is not to be morally immaculate by making absolutely no contribution to the war effort, but to give a testimony to government concerning its own obligation before God.”
Yoder’s essay provoked a great deal of response, as you might expect.
A letter to the editor from Daniel Hertzler () brought up a theme that would echo through much of the subsequent discussion in Mennonite circles: that war tax resistance was a way for conscientiously objecting adults to put some skin in the game, rather than merely advise conscripted youth what they ought to do:
I was much impressed by the article, “Why I Don’t Pay All My Income Tax,” by John H. Yoder…
It seems to me the author shows a good attitude toward the government and toward his brothers in the church.
He is not arrogant toward the government as are some nonviolent resisters, and he presents his case to the brotherhood for discussion.
I hope this issue is taken seriously and discussed thoroughly.
One statement which impressed me most, and which I underlined…[:]
“If action something like my own were taken by a significant number of mature Mennonite wage earners, this would be the first time in the history of our nation that the testimony to nonresistance was given primarily through the initiative of and at a certain cost to the most mature and responsible people in the church.”
Many times leaders in the church are concerned because young people seem to give an uncertain and wavering testimony.
Part of the answer may be that they have not seen persons who are a little older giving a clear-cut and decisive testimony.
I applaud John H. Yoder’s efforts to do something about the present world situation…
In response to his concern, I regret that I have not found a more appropriate testimony against the nation’s trust in the sword.
With all respect to his convictions, I do, however, differ with his solution to this problem.
In principle, our government is doing nothing different from governments throughout history, including those of Bible times; that is, to defend itself by whatever means is necessary…
The author is concerned with alternate service not being a positive witness.
I assume that if enough of us would refuse to pay a portion of our income tax, the government would work out an alternate program.
Would the author then try, and keep on trying, until the government has finally had enough?
The time may come soon enough when we must take a positive stand against our government.
Until that time, the cause of peace is not strengthened by goading the government into making martyrs out of us.
A letter to the editor from Ray Slabaugh () threw cold water on the idea that Paul only counseled Christians to pay all their taxes because Rome was at the time an empire at peace:
Mr Yoder says, or seems to say, the reason Paul or Jesus recognized governmental authority was because Rome was at peace.
Rome was at peace only to the extent that it had crushed the opposition.
It held its people in subjection much like communism.
Whether Jesus would have lived in America today or in the Roman Empire as He did, His message would still be the same, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”
Regardless of what our government uses the income tax money for (and I don’t think our nation is planning to blow up the other half of the world), it is still our obligation to pay our taxes.
We can never change the attitudes of our statesmen or government by means like this.
A brief letter to the editor from Rebecca Longenecker promoted charitable giving as a way of lowering war taxes, and noted that “[t]he local Internal Revenue inspector treated me very kindly when I was called to his office concerning my charity deductions.
Isn’t this another way of giving a positive peace testimony?”
Lloy A. Kniss was more thoroughly critical of Yoder’s ideas.
In a letter to the editor, he wrote that war tax resistance is thoroughly unscriptural and that Christians have no reason to inquire about how their taxes are used after they gladly pay them.
Furthermore, he felt, we should assume good motives on the part of our government and not be in a rush to see its huge military budget and armaments stockpiles as evidence of eagerness for war.
There are wheels within wheels and all that.
He also identified a weakness in Yoder’s argument for war tax resistance, one that persists in many similar arguments today — arguments that use conscientious objection premises (paying taxes for war would involve me in bloodshed in a way I cannot condone) to justify a “witnessing” action (I refuse to pay as a symbol to government of my disapproval, even though I know the government will collect the money eventually):
…[W]e have no New Testament teachings providing for the church to dictate or suggest to the state ways of bringing about reforms in methods of administering justice or in the kinds of weapons not to use in war.
The Christian’s primary responsibility is not to improve or reform the world, but to preach the Gospel…
Another concept expressed in the article which seems incorrect is that by paying taxes we are making a contribution to the war effort.
On the surface it seems plausible to interpret it that way, but the Bible teaches us that the tax money is Caesar’s and not ours.
So what is Caesar’s we give to him to use as he sees fit, for it is his and we are not responsible or guilty of contributing to the war.
Refusing to pay tax is not a real testimony of a non-resistant Christian.
Also Rom. 13 tells us that “he” bears not the sword in vain.
We know that God intends that he should use it.
It does not seem to be in order for Christians to tell him he should not use a two-edged sword, or a fiery sword, or whatever else might be very destructive or horrible.
Certainly the Christian shrinks from seeing such cruelty, but where have we Scriptural basis for dictating to the government on these things?
Burning people alive at the stake was also very cruel and repulsive to think of, and throwing Christians alive to the wild animals was no better, but the New Testament does not instruct Christians to testify against those things which existed there then.
There are also some points in the article which do not stand the test of sanctified reason.
If I felt that paying my income tax is wrong for me as a Christian, I would certainly not pay it, and instead of making it easy for the revenue officers to get it, I would refuse to pay and go to prison if necessary.
Is it Scriptural to assume that we should yield to coercion in matters of right or wrong?
The second-mile teaching refers to personal injury or offense — not to matters of conscience.
We must credit our government with the sincere desire to prevent war as its motive for increasing armaments.
We must believe that our government holds no aggressive intentions.
When we recommend to the government to cease making or testing bombs, we may be encouraging the opposite from what we intended to.
I would rather pray God to direct our rulers as He sees best.
In a case like this I believe we can do more good by praying than by protesting, for do we know what is best after all?
I want to make it clear that all preparations for war, and all making of weapons is repulsive to me as a Christian; as much so as to the author of the article in question, but to promote reform in this area is out of my province.
The author says, “Involvement in one form or another [in the war effort] is avoided by no one.”
This conclusion, it seems to me, is based on legalism.
If one innocently raises corn, as he naturally does, to feed the hungry and to make a living, then it is not his responsibility if somewhere the corn he raises contributes to any government war effort.
I would suggest that the motive in one’s act is what decides his innocence or guilt in this kind of situation.
Of course, if a person holds all his scrap iron until there is a war on and the prices go up, and then sells it for greater profit, we conclude that here he is plainly guilty.
The New Testament injunction to pay our taxes is not conditioned on how the money will be used by the government.
The teachings of the Bible were not given as applying only to local situations at that time.
One of the features of Scripture is that it is never out of date.
I believe we ought to interpret all Scriptures in that light.
The author of the article states that the object is not to keep the government from getting the money, and also in the same article he seems to imply that it is wrong for us to pay taxes that we know are used for military purposes.
This appears to be a contradiction, unless he would propose a passive attitude toward wrong by “making it easy” for the revenue man to get the money.
I believe our brother would not favor taking such a passive weak attitude toward sin.
By a general analysis of the article, it would seem to favor interference by the church in state affairs.
Again, one can see in it the promotion of simple worldly pacifism.
Furthermore, the emphasis that is placed on objection to nuclear weapons seems to betray a lining up with popular sentiment in the world today, rather than Bible-based conviction against taking life.
The principle is the same whether one life is taken, or a thousand.
It reminds one of the difference between a white lie and a big lie; or a petty theft and a bank robbery.
The wrong is the same in both kinds of cases, but the antisocial aspect of the latter is worse than that of the former.
It is debatable… how much a Christian should do to bring about persecution.
Perhaps we should do more than we now do; I don’t know.
It’s too easy to become passive and unconcerned about it.
But doesn’t persecution come to the genuine Christian without his “going out of the way” to get it?
It is this “self-effort” to deliberately try to bring persecution that I feel will only result in stirring up antagonism.
This, in turn, will leave a poor — rather than a positive — witness.
I don’t think we should try to avoid persecution, but neither do I think we should try to create it.
I don’t quite see the individual Christian’s responsibility for our nation’s actions in the same light as Bro. Yoder does.
To voluntarily pay our taxes doesn’t necessarily mean that we approve of the government’s use of that money.
For example, when we pay a bill to the man who delivers coal to us, we don’t ask him what he will do with the money.
We are not responsible, since it no longer is our money, nor can we decide how it ought to be spent.
In the same way, I feel we are not responsible for our nation’s use of money to the degree that Bro. Yoder implies.
There is one technical difference, however; since we are American citizens and thereby indirectly a part of our democratic form of government, we are not completely free from all responsibility in this matter.
I think we as Christians ought to “voice our opinions” (convictions) against the unwise spending of money in America for destructive and defensive measures.
However, could this not be done through personal letters to congressmen and other government officials, who have more say in these decisions than ourselves, rather than by Bro. Yoder’s method of temporarily withholding some tax money (apologies to Bro. Yoder)?
Besides, I feel as though we owe a certain amount of tax money to our government in return for the many freedoms and privileges we enjoy because of it.
I realize that Bro. Yoder fully intended that the government should have the whole amount of tax due, but it was a matter of time and means, of how and when he felt he could give the best possible peace witness.
Though I would not do the same myself, I respect anyone daring to be different for a reason; one has to wonder how different our Bible might be if persons such as Daniel had not dared to be different for conscience’ sake.
I do not condemn Bro. Yoder at all, but I seriously wonder what would happen if every Mennonite Christian (or a high percentage of them) would do likewise.
I personally could not conscientiously withhold some due tax from the government, because I feel that I am obligated to pay it, both as a Christian and as an American citizen.
…Bro. Yoder mentions the difference between the Roman government and our own…
However… there must have been some things about the Roman government of which Christ did not approve.
And He apparently paid His taxes with no comment to government officials as to His objections to their possible use.
…I admire Bro. Yoder for living up to his personal conviction, even though in this instance it differs from my own.
And I do appreciate the main result of the article — that it makes us aware of the high percentage of tax money which is used for purposes contrary to New Testament teachings, and therefore contrary to our Christian convictions.
We dare not ignore this contradiction!
It ought to concern every Christian; but what to do about it remains a basically personal problem, which each must solve as the Lord directs him.
A letter to the editor from Amos W. Weaver () began by explaining why the author does not vote in elections, feeling that such a vote would give his stamp of approval for the eventual immoral actions of those he voted for.
But he felt the same logic does not apply to taxation:
But I can and do pay my taxes with a clear conscience and would have a guilty conscience if I did not.
When Jesus said, “Render… unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,” He gave no qualifications nor suggested any exceptions even though He must have been well aware of Caesar’s (and the Caesars in general) dissolute, profligate living and his cruel and wanton disregard for life.
The taxes paid to the Caesars were used for wars of conquest, oppression, wanton destruction of life, and for luxuriant and sensual living.
But he did represent law and order in general and so, in God’s economy for a sinful society, deserved support.
In Rom. 12 Paul, though the inspiration of the Spirit, plainly teaches against violence or taking vengeance by the believer, declaring that God will repay the evildoer and punish him.
Then in the following chapter Paul continues by showing how God is taking vengeance and punishing the evildoer with the sword, in the hands of God-ordained government whose agents are declared to be, in this area of justice, God’s ministers, or servants.
Paul, through the Spirit, then most plainly tells us to pay tribute because of that very thing, suppressing evil with the sword, a thing the believer may not do but is commanded to pay the government for doing.
Paul calls for our full support of the official sword even though he well knew that official sword often took innocent lives, destroyed wantonly at times, beheaded John the Baptist, nailed Christ to the cross, and the Spirit knew would someday remove Paul’s head, destroy nearly all of the apostles and hundreds and thousands of faithful men of God in the centuries to come.
Then he adds, by way of further emphasis, “Render therefore to all their dues.”
There was also some additional content around this time that was not directly in response to the Yoder article.
Among these were news of war tax resisters from other Christian sects, such as this note about Arthur Evans ():
A Colorado Quaker who long has refused voluntary payment of that portion of his federal taxes earmarked for military spending plans the same course of action .
Dr. Arthur Evans, a Denver physician, for 20 years has donated the amount of money equal to his tax burden of military spending to a charity and has sent the receipt to the Internal Revenue Service.
And every year the IRS attaches his bank account, collects the amount due, and adds a 6 per cent interest charge.
, because the IRS was “using the information I was voluntarily giving for evil purposes,” Dr. Evans did not file any federal return.
To make up for his tax liability, the physician sent the IRS five checks for $200 each — payable to the United Nations, the Peace Corps, and the AID program.
Dr. Evans contends he is meeting his obligations by contributing to organizations such as the United Nations, which are supported at least in part by the U.S. government.
The IRS, in returning the checks, stated “they have no connection with any tax liability and cannot be accepted by this office.”
The Quaker, who terms military spending as a “Doomsday Machine,” continues to pay his state income taxes because they have no military spending connection.
Karel F. Botermans, minister of San Anselmo’s Unitarian Universalist church, has declined to pay 61 per cent of his federal income tax on the grounds that it would go for “carefully planned machinery to kill millions of human beings.”
The Dutch-born pastor, a leader in the Netherlands underground during the Nazi occupation, sent the remaining 39 per cent of his tax to the Internal Revenue Service.
He also mailed copies of his protest letter to President Kennedy and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara.
In his message he asserted the belief that “I have international law on my side.”
He referred to the Nürnberg trials, “where it was stated by our Allied judges that, in actions of genocide, every person in that society involved in those actions is to be held responsible.”
Mr. Botermans said, “It is obvious that our ‘defense program’ is a preparation for genocide attempt, one which might be far more devastating than the Nazis ever dreamed of.”
The pacifist clergyman pointed out he would gladly pay the withheld 61 per cent of his tax if the U.S. pledged to spend the money for other methods of settling international differences.
An article meant to refute the Biblical case for conscientious objection to war taxes appeared in the edition.
The article, “Taxes and the New Testament” by William Klassen, seemed in context to be a rebuttal to Yoder’s article, but an editorial note said that “It was written before the author read the Yoder article and is not to be considered a reply to it.”
But even Klassen’s article, though generally skeptical of Christian arguments for war tax resistance, offered an escape route for prophets who wanted to push the boundaries of Christian behavior in that direction:
It would seem… that any protest against income taxes in the United States on the basis of the proportion of taxes going into the military effort or the size of these taxes per se cannot appeal to the New Testament.
Although one might adduce certain arguments for the nonpayment of taxes, the concern for the eventual use of this money finds no support in Jesus’ teaching.
His followers pay taxes.
Nevertheless, it is possible that if He had lived today, He might have taken a different approach.
We must endeavor to find the will of Christ for today, but it is difficult to deviate from the letter when the evidence in the New Testament is rather clear.
Yet we have done it in other areas.
For example, the New Testament warns against drunkenness, but nowhere prohibits the drinking of wine.
Does this perhaps mean that since Jesus drank and made wine, we should do so also?
Generally we do not say so.
Rather, we feel that we must go beyond the written word and allow ourselves to be impelled by the Spirit of Christ.
Whether we always have the mind of Christ under such circumstances remains an open question.
We do, however, engage in a search for God’s will without simply repeating the written word.
In the case of taxes we may ask:
Would our witness as Christians be more consistent if we at least lodged a protest with the government about the use of tax money?
Should we refuse payment, thus bringing an element of coercion into the situation?
Should we request that our taxes be designated for such causes as the Peace Corps or foreign aid or the United Nations?
Or should we continue to pay taxes, appealing to the New Testament as our guide in this?
It is clear that any attempt to arrive at consensus on this matter to the extent that we might be able to move ahead in anything like a united front would be a Herculean task.
When our base no longer is a simple literalistic Biblicism, then we need a much more thorough period of instruction before we can have any kind of consensus.
One of the immediate steps could be to sensitize our conscience on the matter by analyzing the real issues before us.
Perhaps a study should also be made of the Amish protest to Social Security.
Did their concern, that the church cares for its own, really get a hearing or did they simply perpetuate their reputation for solidly resisting all change?
Seen from the standpoint of the New Testament, witnessing has little value apart from the degree to which it communicates the lordship of Christ.
This is the tenth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
After the flood of letters and articles when John Howard Yoder came out as a Mennonite war tax resister in , there was a lull — maybe even an “enough, already” — that lasted .
There were a couple of additional sideways-glances at the war tax problem in .
This one is found in the issue, and follows the pre-Yoder practice of cautiously attributing such sentiments to non-Mennonites (Baptists in this case):
John W. Bradbury, editor of The Watchman-Examiner, writes:
National defense puts a great burden on each citizen not only in heavy taxation but in the individual conscience.
Consider the following.
At a super-military establishment in Maryland a team of scientists devote themselves to the perfection of germ warfare.
Of course, they are also developing ways of discovering methods against biological warfare attack by an enemy.
These scientists work on their assigned projects, of course, with the hope that the life-destroying methods will not be used.
Their frightening possibilities include the inducing of pulmonary anthrax, which dogs the lung sacs and is 99 per cent fatal.
Another is the poison secreted by bacterium which produces food poisoning.
Nerve gases are being sought that can contract muscles, paralyze, prostrate, and kill the victim.
This is no compliment for the kind of world in which we live!
The argument for it is that this sort of thing is forced on us by a relentless enemy.
It, however, gives a Christian taxpayer some qualms of conscience when he finds out he is paying the cost of all this.
Just how much evil are we Christians supporting by our taxes these days?
An unsigned editorial in the edition included, in passing, this portrayal of one variety of Christian tax resisters:
…what is sometimes called Anarchistic Christian pacifism.
This kind of pacifist renounces and repudiates the state completely.
The state is evil.
There dare be no coercion.
These have advocated the refusal to pay taxes or support the government in any way.
John E. Lapp, who had also written an earlier article on why he does not vote in government elections, wrote, in “How Should I Witness to the State?” (), that he does feel he must participate in the government by willingly paying taxes:
The only time when I am permitted to say that I must disobey is when the laws of the land conflict with the higher laws of God.
Then I am moved to say, “[I] must obey God rather than men.”
Lapp’s earlier essay on voting (which also touched on taxes somewhat) prompted a letter to the editor from Willis G. Horst () in which he tried to resurface war tax resistance as a proper Christian action:
In “Why I Do Not Vote in Political Elections”… we are urged to pay our taxes cheerfully to such a benevolent state as ours.
But of all the uses to which our tax money is put, the war machine, which takes by far the largest percentage, is not mentioned.
Many of us are convinced that in the present situation our Caesar is using this money for purposes beyond the legitimate use of his authority.
What is our obligation?
What about the statement in the same article pointing out that the [early] Anabaptists felt that “The Christian does not need to render to the state the oath, nor military service, nor war taxes”?
Shall we continue to pay such taxes “cheerfully”?
A note in the issue informed readers of some war tax resisters who had organized outside of a Christian church context:
Fifteen Cornell University professors who are opposed to the war in Vietnam paid only 50 percent of their federal income taxes this year because they said half the nation’s annual budget is now being spent on the war.
They said their protest was aimed at the war and not at the government’s right to collect taxes.
By and large, while Gospel Herald writers (of the Mennonite Church) were much more opposed to World War Ⅰ Liberty Bonds than writers from The Mennonite (of the General Conference Mennonite Church), and even at times showed a little skepticism towards the “Civilian Bonds” program of World War Ⅱ where little or none could be seen in the latter magazine, during the Cold War and Vietnam War periods, Gospel Herald was lagging behind its cousin in its enthusiasm for war tax resistance.
Resolved, (1) That we seek to be more faithful in witnessing as vigorously against the evils of war by our own and all governments as we are in witnessing concerning our own conscientious objector interests, and (2) That we ask the committee to aid us in making a fresh study of the biblical teaching concerning the payment of taxes collected explicitly for war purposes and such other similar involvements in the war effort that they may find among us inconsistent with our profession as a peace church committed to Christ’s way and to suggest such remedial measures that will underscore our conviction and witness.
Joe Evans hoped to give the Mennonite Church a kickstart, in a letter to the editor published in the issue:
I think it is time that the Mennonite Church came out of its shell.
It is our Vietcong brothers and sisters who are being killed daily.
Let us not forget our American boys who are exposed to the filth of war daily.
We as a church which hates everything bad in the world must unite and give Christ to the double standard world.
We must use everything that is peaceful to do it.
This means our church boys must be firm conscientious objectors.
Also the church must use peaceful demonstrations and boycotts, giving our taxes to a charity in lieu of the government.
We must also pray constantly for a strength that will see us through.
Christ gave His all; so why are we afraid to witness to everyone we meet and show the world that true love is the answer?
An editorial in the issue, signed “D.” (presumably John M. Drescher), began to ease the Church out of that shell:
One tenth of the entire gross national product of the United States goes for defense.
This means $1,400 for the average family of four each year.
It means that we are spending $20 for defense for every $10 spent for public education and $12 for defense for every $20 spent for groceries.
According to the New York Times the production of military arms is "the single biggest manufacturing industry in the world.
And the United States has been the principal source of arms for the whole world.
In the recent Israeli-Arab conflict, both sides were using American-made Patton and Sherman tanks.
The awful fact concerning reports made about American aid to other countries is that military aid figures are included with other forms of aid, giving the impression that the United States is liberal in its non-military aid, such as food, peace corps, and other resources.
The aid given by the United States other than military is at present below the average given by other industrialized nations.
This is to say that approximately .4 of one percent of the aid given by the United States to other countries is nonmilitary, which is a small part indeed.
Huntley and Brinkley in the Times report said that the total personal income tax paid into the federal treasury during the year was $62 billion.
However, the U.S. channeled $70 billion through the Pentagon during the same time.
This means that according to how you look at it, every dollar of your income tax money, and more, went for military purposes.
What the Defense Department spends each year to “protect” the United States would produce the means to blow up the world several times over.
Estimated defense budget for is $73 billion.
But it now appears that five or six billion may have to be added to the estimate for .
Yet there is less debate in Congress on this gigantic military budget than on programs proposed in housing, education, economic opportunity, and overseas aid, all of which lumped together are insignificant in comparison.
Apparently even congressmen dare not speak out on the military expenditure lest they be labeled doves or communist sympathizers.
According to a recent speech by Ira Moomaw, veteran Far East missionary and author of the book, Vietnam Summons, we are doing well in Vietnam military.
“We have dropped 90 pounds of bombs and napalm for each inhabitant in the entire country and have spent $10,500 for every Vietnamese family North and South in conducting the war.”
Describing the effects of a napalm bombing which Moomaw and his wife witnessed, he said:
“There could come a time when the survivors may envy the dead.”
According to Charles Bartlett and Edward Weintal in Facing the Brink (Charles Scribner’s Sons), “the irony of the epic struggle in Vietnam is the little-known fact that in , when President Eisenhower was deciding whether to intervene with American military power to save the besieged French forces at Dien Bien Phu, the most vehement protest came from the Democratic Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson.
One observer recalls that the Texan pounded on the president’s desk to underline his refusal to support any move that might commit American troops to Asian jungles.
Raising any kind of new tax to fight the Vietnam war will certainly find considerable reaction.
In the discussion of the report of the Committee on Peace and Social Concerns at Mennonite General Conference, delegates asked for direction on the matter of paying taxes designated for war purposes.
A resolution was passed which calls for “the committee to aid us in making a fresh study of the biblical teaching concerning the payment of taxes collected explicitly for war purposes and such other similar involvements in the war effort that they may find among us inconsistent with our profession as a peace church committed to Christ’s way and to suggest such remedial measures that will underscore our conviction and witness.”
I think such guidance is needed promptly.
What should we do in our witness against war?
Is withholding tax money a Christian witness?
What should we do if a tax is required which is primarily or solely for the support of the war machine?
The answer certainly is not an easy one.
One must wonder what would happen by way of witness against the wrongness of war if 10,000 or more Mennonites would protest war by refusing to pay a percentage of income tax and give the amount withheld to causes which feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and bring the gospel to our needy world.
Some in our brotherhood seem bothered that we are speaking so much to the Vietnam concern.
Certainly we must continually say all war, not just the Vietnam war, is wrong and we must be alert to other close and equally serious sins.
Yet it happens that this war is being carried on at present and now is the time to speak.
And where the government has made the manufacture of military arms such a major business then certainly a peace church should have something to say about the futility and sin of this approach.
Twenty-three Roman Catholic priests in Kansas City, Mo., have indicated their opposition to President Johnson’s proposed 10 percent surtax because “we could not in conscience pay a tax earmarked for deeper involvement in the (Vietnam) war.”
The clerics expressed their view in identical letters sent to the two Missouri senators, Stuart Symington and Edward V. Long, both Democrats.
The letters were circulated for signatures by two members of the “junior clergy” (priests ordained less than five years), but signatures of several chancery officials and department heads, assistant heads, and pastors were included.
All but one of the 23 priests are from the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph.
“While realizing the difficult decision facing you in the vote on the proposed 10 percent surtax,” the letters stated, “we feel it imperative to voice publicly our disapproval of the tax…
The upheavals our nation has faced in recent weeks have emphasized the need for such a grave response on our part at such a critical moment.”
The priests disavowed “the policy of escalation of killing” and supported “the escalation of our domestic and foreign commitment for the improvement of life.”
Their letters added:
“Our reliance on violence to force the enemy to the peace table has been reflected in the same policies in Negro communities to obtain their objectives.
The 11 percent rise in crime during the past year has shown how well the lesson has been learned by all our communities.”
A series of letters-to-the editor followed through :
“I am convinced that if we as a peace group pay taxes for war, we are indeed hypocritical.
In actuality, the Mennonite position is — we shall not fight, but we shall support fighting through taxation.
Thus the only difference between peaceful (?) U.S. and the U.S. war machine is a physical difference; certainly it is not a moral or spiritual difference.
We are not there bodily, but in truth and spirit we are willing to support evil destruction.”
Byler criticized war tax resistance and suggested the alternatives of either total withdrawal from the war economy or of continued engagement along with substantial charitable deductions.
Hartsburg took the position that the Render-unto-Caesar answer trumps any Mennonite revulsion towards war.
Besides, he wrote, the government also does objectionable things during peacetime; should that mean we shouldn’t pay taxes then too?
Miller suggested paying under protest as a compromise.
This is the eleventh in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
Passive nonresistance was starting to look insufficiently peaceful by
, when the world around the Mennonite Church
was becoming more influenced by anti-war activism.
In the issue, Arnold W.
Cressman told Mennonites they were
missing the boat:
Some time ago, I saw Joan Baez, popular folk singer, interviewed on
TV. In this broadcast
she was saying all the things about peace that we Mennonites should be saying.
I was ashamed because we are not saying them, at least not loudly enough that
people notice.
By contrast the TV
program reviewing the Mennonites was called “A Peaceful Revolution.” That was
to say that radical changes are happening among the Mennonites; they are
getting more and more like status quo Americans and Canadians. But they are no
threat to anybody. The thing that was bad about the program was that it made
us look too good. While there were serious attempts by several to say the
disturbing things we think we believe about peace, yet the film makers
apparently were not impressed. They could not find enough living evidence of
this radical discipleship we talk about to make it a dominant theme in the
film. So, much of the good talk was cut out.
It is time to build conviction about peace that produces both words and
action. If peace has come to mean for us a sort of washed-out, do-nothing
nonresistance, then we had better take another look in the Bible. If we think
our Anabaptist, New Testament, peace position has nothing to do with war
taxes, racism, poverty, and nationalism, if the festering social problems are
not included in our concern, if it is thought that we should passively nod
“yes” to the status quo, then we had better be jolted to think again. If we
don’t, then serious Mennonite young people growing up in the generation of
Joan Baez will go somewhere else to buy their brand of peace.
They want an aggressive product. They will not sit in a corner and wait for
someone to hit one cheek so that they can piously turn the other also. The
world doesn’t hit people who sit in a corner. It hits people who are out
meddling with the corrupt but comfortable status quo — as Jesus did.
Please permit a delayed response to the editorial,
“Dare We Pay Taxes for War?” in
Gospel Herald, which just arrived. (Wish we could
afford airmailed Gospel Heralds!) My response from
Vietnam to the question posed so well is that Christians dare not pay
war taxes. Our government has gone far beyond the New Testament mandate to
maintain order, reward, and punish in her involvement in Vietnam. But we
Mennonites need to go beyond the negative symbolism of refusing to pay war
taxes. We need perhaps to begin to at least give a tithe. We need to establish
our credibility as responsible protesters of nationalism and militarism by
getting much more deeply involved in the problems that are feeding the fires
of conflict at home and abroad. We have accepted very materialistic values and
quasi-Christian ethics from our environment that compromise our witness to the
world who pass us off as “unrealistic” and “irresponsible.” The way of love
and suffering will never be understood by our fellowmen until more radical
demonstrations of it are seen by those of us who say we are committed to the
New Testament ethic of love.
In its issue,
Gospel Herald reprinted James Juhnke’s essay on “Our
Almost Unused Political Power” (see ♇ 19
July 2018 for the essay as it appeared in The
Mennonite). In response, in
a letter to the editor
printed in the issue,
David L. Groh wrote:
[W]hen our representatives went to Washington to ask for a change in the
proposed draft law, they used a threat — [“]that ‘thousands of conscientious
objectors’ would violate the law and accept imprisonment rather than…
induction into the armed services.” The fact that these representatives were
willing to make this statement speaks highly of their confidence in our
draft-age young men.
There was one crucial point to which I wish Mr. Juhnke would have spoken. What
would he suggest should be used as our next threat of civil disobedience, to
get across the point of deescalation in Vietnam? Withholding the defense
spending part of income tax? Boycotting of industries vital to defense?
Disinvestment in certain strategic industries? Any of these would require the
cooperation of the older generation. Could our representatives be as confident
that such a threat would have the same possibility of being carried out as
they were when speaking for our youth?
Allan Eitzen also suggested a large-scale Mennonite war tax resistance
campaign, in a
letter to the editor:
The study of more vital peacemaking scheduled for the Sunday schools during
the second quarter of this year is a good and timely beginning, and I would
propose that somewhere in this study serious consideration should be given to
the possible effect of a large-scale practice of withholding portions of
individual income tax as a tangible objection to the war policy in Vietnam.
The optional participation in such a program by those who feel so inclined
would not keep the Department of Internal Revenue from extracting the withheld
amounts from the financial accounts of participants, but the general
inconvenience to government arising from a widespread practice of this kind
would certainly show more clearly how deeply our convictions are held.
When we consider that the Allied prosecution during the Nuremberg war-crimes
trials after World War Ⅱ was based largely on the principle that individual
conscience takes precedence over unjust national laws, it seems appropriate
that we should reexamine our stand against war to see if it has become too
ineffectual.
Last we heard from John E. Lapp (see ♇ 7
September 2018) he was writing about how he could respect war tax
resisters, but he himself felt called “to pay my taxes honestly and promptly…
without raising the question” of paying for war. In
“The Gospel from Words to Deeds”
(), he seems to have begun to
relax into some form of war tax resistance:
We need to fulfill our responsibility toward the state.
Romans 13 and
1 Peter 2.
This means obedience to the laws of the state. When we cannot comply with the
laws, we must be submissive to the penalties. We will pay our taxes
cheerfully, “[rendering] to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God
the things that are God’s,” but we will also express our convictions on war
taxes, and in times when it is necessary may even withhold the payment of
those taxes which are clearly for war purposes.
A
letter to the editor
from Ruth Burkholder deplored the trend that was developing, saying that the
lawlessness of tax resistance was wrong, and two wrongs don’t make a right.
After all, “Jesus paid His taxes as a law-abiding citizen and you know the
Romans used that tax money for war.”
A editorial by “D.” (presumably
editor John M. Drescher), entitled
“Peacemaker Questions”,
boldly overturned what had been the established orthodox reading of bible
verses regarding civic responsibility, and thereby created more space for
scriptural support for such stands as war tax resistance. Excerpts:
A… statement which to some settles all responsibility is
“the government is ordained of God.”
This certainly cannot mean that we hold God responsible for every crooked and
corrupt political figure who attains a place of power. We cannot charge God
with putting Nero, Hitler, or Stalin in power. It may well be that people
often get the leaders they deserve, but we must not blame God for our sins.
We, as a denomination, say that it is clear what our response is in relation
to war. But many feel the question should not be raised in regard to the
payment of war taxes. Such persons point to Jesus as an example in His paying
taxes to the government of Rome which also supported an army.
But certain considerations should be kept in mind. This statement of Jesus
means that we are expected to make a judgment as to what properly belongs to
Caesar and to God. We stop short in rendering unto Caesar when it comes to
going to war. But what is our response when the government goes beyond
its New Testament mandate to maintain order, reward the good, and punish the evildoer?
How should we respond when our best judgment and Christian conviction says
Caesar is unfaithful to his mandate?
Defenders of the traditional interpretations of these verses were quick to
respond. In a
letter to the editor,
Wallace Kauffman took Drescher to task for contradicting Paul’s assertion that
the world’s political leaders are established as such by God, in part as God’s
tool for inflicting His wrath on the deserving. The Neros and Hitlers and such
are ordained by God, he insisted, just like Paul says. We shouldn’t
second-guess God’s choices in this regard, no matter how unpleasant they seem
to us. And let there be no doubt: “we are commanded to pay taxes.”
A
letter to the editor
from Allan W. Smith also disagreed with Drescher’s take. “Had we not better take
the Bible at its word?” he asked. For that matter, he felt, why should
Christians get upset about the use of their taxes only during wartime; doesn’t
the government use tax money in immoral ways all the time? Must we withdraw our
money from banks because it might be “invested in a brewery or munitions
plant”?
Once we begin to restate long-standing Scriptures to suit our times and
popular causes, we are, I fear, opening the door to final anarchy.
An article in the issue — “Allegiance and Where Will the Line Be Drawn?”
by Merrit Birky — stood out to me in part because of how matter-of-factly
Birky used the term “pacifist” rather than “nonresistant” to describe Christian
conscientious objection to war. Contrast this with writers from the World War Ⅱ
era (see ♇ 3 September 2018) who were
careful to distinguish Mennonite nonresistance from secular pacifism.
When does the Christian with a firm belief in love as exemplified by Christ
refuse to support his country? When and where does he draw the line and say,
“I cannot compromise my moral obligations any longer”? When are the demands of
my country in conflict with the commands of my God? Can the pacifist, in clear
conscience, pay taxes and tax increases, with the present national policy?
When does he say,
“I must obey God rather than man”?
How does one interpret, “Render unto Caesar…,” in a democracy, when the
government is the responsibility of its people? Christian stewardship must
demand that one strive to see that a government of the people is just. What
does it mean for the Christian to witness to the government and to his
community?
Should he draw the line and refuse to contribute along with his fellow
Americans $26 billion a year for the Vietnam war, a war that kills more
civilians than military, a war that many non-Christians consider immoral and
wrong? Can the Christian support a country in which about 78 cents out of each
tax dollar goes to the military machinery?…
Can [the New Testament Christian] pray for peace and pay for war?
When is his conscience violated? When does he become a conscientious
objector?…
…Are those who contribute to this war immoral? I mean the pacifist taxpayer?…
The brought news from the
Mennonite Church’s cousin, the General Conference Mennonite Church, which had
passed a Resolution on Nationalism in .
That resolution included the following text:
We… exhort the members of the North American brotherhood to discuss together
how they can express concretely in action their concerns on these current
issues where conflicting loyalties are acute and we may tend to a national
idolatry. We suggest the following as possible subjects:
Search our consciences on the question of paying taxes for military
purposes; support generously international mission and service programs;
urge churches to support those who by reason of conscience refuse to pay
the percentage of taxes for military purposes.
In a
“Conference of Historic Peace Churches”
was held. Maynard Shelly reported on the conference, and conveyed the sense
that the peace churches had missed an opportunity to show their mettle as the
anti-Vietnam-War and civil rights movements were happening around them:
Spurred on by the youth delegates to the consultation, a group at New Windsor
prepared a brief statement calling for “creative and Christian responses to
people living in our ghettos” and for “counseling on the draft and nonpayment
of war taxes for those who need it.”
What also seemed to be coming through was the implication that the peace
witness may well be a minority position even within the peace churches who
themselves are minority groups already.
This is the twelfth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
By , war tax resistance had come out in the
open in Gospel Herald as a practice that had support
in the Mennonite Church community, though not without reservations from
conservative hold-outs. But that year, coverage of the issue became
inexplicably muted and the magazine returned to its earlier, more reserved
practice of mostly reporting on war tax resistance from a distance, as the
sort of thing other groups did.
For example, the issue included
this note
about a Church of the Brethren congregation:
The Wilmington, Del. Church
of the Brethren will refuse to pay the federal excise tax on telephones as a
protest against the Vietnam War.
The church council voted 8-6 to stop payment in accordance with a proposal
submitted by the congregation’s witness commission.
The Reverend Allen T. Hansell, pastor, said he has been withholding the 10 per
cent tax from his own telephone bill payments since
.
When the proposal was endorsed by the council, individual members were asked
to consider withholding their personal phone bills’ tax.
Robert Cain, Jr., chairman of
the Witness Committee, said he had been told by Church of the Brethren
headquarters, Elgin, Ill.,
that withholding of the tax has been considered by other congregations, but no
action had been taken before the Wilmington church’s decision.
The church council sent a letter to President Richard M. Nixon outlining its
action and urging him “to use all resources and power available to you as
president of the United States to achieve world peace.”
Mr. Cain said the church is not against paying taxes to the government, but
when the federal government restored the telephone excise tax in
, it was felt it was a tax “directly imposed
to help pay for the war in Vietnam.”
Richard and Carol Morse, a Quaker couple recently returned from three months
working in a Vietnam rehabilitation center, have notified President Nixon they
won’t pay taxes .
“After what we have seen in Vietnam,” the Morses told Mr. Nixon in a letter,
“we feel that you are insulting the American people by asking them to support
such destruction.”
As a result of their experiences with amputees at the center the couple
stated: “We can no longer let it be assumed that we condone the violent
destruction of Vietnam by our voluntary payment of taxes.”
Mr. and Mrs. Morse said Vietnam is “a refugee country,” and noted that “their
whole social system has been turned upside down.”
Things began to pick up again in . In the
issue, Warren M. Wenger
warned Mennonites
that they were in danger of letting history pass by and leave them behind:
Today there appears to be some confusion, on our part, as to how to relate to
the popular peace movement, when to some degree they “have stolen our
thunder.” Shall we now change our practice, of payment of taxes and
registering for the draft and applying for Ⅰ-0 classification, a position
which previously had us branded as “radicals” and now is only “moderate”? The
true “radical” position now involves nonpayment of “war” taxes,
nonregistration, migration, and other developing resistance.
The traditional Mennonite solution, which included payment of taxes and
registration, made us quite unpopular in “normal” war years. Vietnam, however,
is not a “normal” war and the likely occurrence of other similar wars is
always present. We cannot afford to close our eyes and hope the problem will
go away. We need to carefully think through the present dilemma, and in the
light of God’s Word, guided by the ever-present Holy Spirit, find the way
through our problems. We are all aware that no solution for a problem
is ever a permanent one. Change is always present. Each generation must do as
we are doing, search the Scriptures, seek and accept the leading of God s
Spirit, search our own hearts and minds for the way to construct a useful
life, which brings glory to His name, life to His church, and light to the
world.
An early “peace tax fund”-like proposal surfaced in a
article
(“War Taxes Questioned”),
which also tried to attack the traditional always-pay-your-taxes interpretation
of the Render-unto-Caesar riddle from several angles:
James K. Stauffer, veteran Mennonite missionary in Vietnam, questions
Mennonite payment of war taxes…
Stauffer comments, “It’s about time for ‘our people’ — the Mennonite
brotherhood — to give a consistent testimony against war. Let’s get at
the root of all evil — money, or more particularly, taxes! The other day 35
B‒52s dropped 1,000 tons of bombs on
suspected enemy positions in Cambodia. One wonders how many Mennonite
tax-dollars helped make that mission successful!
“During World War Ⅱ our government agreed to the Civilian Public Service
program. Our men were permitted to engage in work of national importance. The
time has come for the peace churches to request a plan whereby our tax-dollars
could be channeled directly to some constructive cause. Campus protests,
street demonstrations, draft card burnings,
etc., have not
been effective in stopping the war. But choking off the funds that feed the
military-industrial complex could bring results.
“The contribution by members of the peace churches to the gigantic 73 billion
defense budget is infinitesimal, but there would no doubt be many Christians
in other denominations who would welcome the idea.
“By now the ‘render to Caesar…’ statement is haunting us. Perhaps we get hung
up on the letter of the law and ignore the Spirit. Remember, the letter kills,
but the Spirit gives life! Permit a few comments on this text.
“Jesus spoke these words in peace-time. The famous Pax
Romana was a reality. While Rome conquered like a barbarian, she ruled
those she conquered like a humane statesman (I.S.B.E., p. 2600).
“Our President is a professing Christian. Caesar was not. Our full and
unquestioning support of his methods and policies gives to the world a
distorted image of Christianity.
“Jesus did not define exactly what or how much belongs to Caesar. He sent
the Holy Spirit to guide us in determining where to draw the line. Each
generation needs to assess the existing political situation.
“As a brotherhood professing discipleship, we believe that all of life is
sacred. Our strength, abilities, time, and money belong to God. We refuse
to give our bodies to the war god; why should we give our money?
“Some say that the taxpayer is not responsible for the way the government
uses his money. This would perhaps have some validity if a reasonable
amount was being appropriated for defense. But when most of it goes for
military purposes at the expense of desperate social and domestic needs,
something is radically wrong.
“Furthermore, placing the responsibility on government is the same
argument used by many Christians who justify their participation in the
armed forces. So, let’s be consistent in both areas!”
Stauffer’s arguments prompted a rebuttal from Anna Mae Nolt arguing that there
was nothing especially objectionable about war taxes, as more people (Americans
anyway) were being killed on the highways than in Vietnam and yet nobody was
arguing we should refuse to pay taxes for highways. Besides, if you don’t want
to pay taxes you can always move to some other country.
Discussions at Mission ’70 indicated widespread concern among Mennonites
regarding the relative validity of the various ways young men related to the
Selective Service System and the pros and cons involved in paying taxes used
for military purposes.
It was moved and carried to urge the Peace and Social Concerns Committee to
direct more study on the congregational and family levels which can lead
people to a clearer and more forthright understanding, conviction, and action
on matters relating to peace, the draft, and taxes used for military purposes.
Most people seem to think their only responsibility is to pray for the
president and pay taxes. I just can’t buy that any more. I feel that as a
Christian I have a very strong responsibility to witness to the government
concerning what seems to be a gross immorality. So when people are interested
in the same goals as I (i.e. ending a war),
and they use acceptable means of achieving that goal, I will support them.
This witness to the government might well include prayer, but it might also
include not paying taxes which finance the immorality.
The Mennonite attitude toward war and military service rests deeply in their
obedience to the Jesus’ way of life as one of love and reconciliation. A
corollary conviction is that this way of life includes separation from the
evils of the world, a life conformed to Christ and nonconformed to the
patterns of violence and the instruments of carnal warfare. Conscientious
objection to evil, to war and militarism is one of the characteristics of a
dynamic nonconformity.
The pattern of conscientious objection familiar to modern Mennonites emerged
comparatively recently in modern history. With the rise of democratic
governments, armies were expanded by the use of various conscription
techniques. Democracy and conscription grew up together although thee was
constant tension between them. The conscientious objector was and is a citizen
who for reasons of conscience could not become part of an organization bent on
killing — the military. He refuses to serve the military, not out of an
irresponsible citizenship, but rather to suggest an alternate and better way
of solving human problems.
Since the first conscript armies of the eighteenth century, the character of
warfare has changed enormously. In the United States
the military constituted a very
small percentage of the population. Military action consumed an even smaller
part of the time in service. Military concerns involved only a small sector of
political and economic life. An effective and useful witness against war was
to refuse to serve in the military.
Now, however, there are over 3,000,000 Americans in the Armed Forces. Nearly
40 million living American males have served in the Armed Forces. Compulsory
service is sometimes extended for draftees to five or six years. Yet in spite
of expanded armies fewer and fewer persons are involved in actual combat. War
has become a technique fought with tanks, planes, flamethrowers, napalm plus
bombs, and chemicals, to kill unseen enemies. War is no longer the plaything
of the generals nor even of the tehnologists but of an entire society which
provides the know-how and the wherewithal to wage war. We live in an age when
war is total; it involves the economic, scientific, political, ideological,
educational, and religious resources of the entire society. In the United
States we live in what Fred Cook calls a “warfare state” where it is nearly
impossible to escape the effects and impact of war.
In such a situation is there any validity to conscientious objection to
military service. Or are there other forms of conscientious objection which
will symbolically witness to the way of Christ and against the way of war?
Donald Kaufman does not treat the entire problem of militarism, the warfare
state, or even conscientious objection. He poses the fundamental question
posed by the Pharisees to Jesus in Matthew 22 and then deals with one specific
issue — the question of war taxes.
Kaufman has mastered a vast amount of material regarding the history of
taxation, the biblical passages involving the tax question, and the arguments
and practices of those who do not pay war taxes. Howard Charles of Goshen
Biblical Seminary writes a stimulating introduction to the volume. A valuable
dimension of this book is the comprehensive bibliography which includes an
excellent compilation of periodical articles.
Beginning with the basic issue, Kaufman explores the meaning of taxation in
the biblical world. There taxes upheld a vast religious establishment as well
as the civil authorities. In the “ancient city,” however, it was difficult to
distinguish the religious from the civil, for the king was more than a
political leader. Caesar was worshiped. Caesar claimed to be lord. Exorbitant
taxation was rarely protested save by the Jews who objected to taxes which
implied that Caesar was Lord rather than Yahweh.
It is this context which make so difficult the exegesis of biblical passages
involving political structures. Kaufman effectively interprets
Matthew 17:24–27,
Mark 12,
Romans 13, and
1 Peter 2.
Perhaps the crucial insight of this analysis is that both Jesus and the New
Testament writers suggest principles and perimeters, rather than legal dicta
with fixed answers in which and by which Christians make decisions. Government
and taxes can be good and bad, depending on purposes and motives for taxation.
Payment of taxes can be for conscience’ sake and non-payment of taxes can be
for conscience’ sake.
Arguments against paying war taxes are less well known than arguments for
paying war taxes. But arguments against paying war taxes are the same as
arguments for not participating in the military. For Christians, these
arguments rest on obedience to God rather than man, on the commitment to love
rather than hate, on the duty to give rather than to take, on supporting that
which makes peace and opposing that which hurts, kills, and destroys.
There have always been tax resisters. There have always been Christian who for
conscience’ sake have refused to pay certain taxes. Early Christians refused
to pay compulsory taxes to Caesar’s pagan temples. Medieval monks reduced
their income so they would not have to pay taxes to evil kings. The radical
sectarians, including some of the early Anabaptists, felt taxes were a moral
issue, and that some were not to be paid. The Hutterites criticized their
fellow Anabaptists for paying war taxes even though they refused to bear arms.
The early Quakers, through William Penn, told the queen of England that their
conscience would not allow “a tribute to carry on any war, nor ought true
Christians to pay i.” The Mennonites in Eastern Pennsylvania split during the
Revolutionary War, one reason being the issue of war taxes. They joined,
however, with their Dunkard neighbors to petition the Pennsylvania Assembly
stating, “We find no freedom in giving, or doing, or assisting in any thing by
which men’s lives are destroyed or hurt.”
Since then, Mennonites have generally paid war taxes. They even hired
substitute soldiers so they would not need to fight during the Civil War.
However, Mennonites were clear in opposing any voluntary campaigns to sell and
buy war bonds. In recent years the war tax question has become more alive in
the brotherhood. When President Lyndon Johnson said the telephone excise tax
and the Income Surtax were necessary to fight the war in Vietnam, the mask on
taxes was removed. Thus some taxes are clearly designated to fight a war
without having to analyze the allocations of the national budget.
Donald Kaufman methodically and analytically forces the reader to confront the
question, “Can I pray for peace and pay for war?” What really belongs to
Caesar? If one believes in the stewardship of money, is the use of money for
war good stewardship? Money can destroy life. Money through taxes is without a
doubt “the central vital nerve of the military Leviathan.” What then do we do
with Pastor John Franz who during World War Ⅰ told his Montana community,
“Using our money to make it possible for others to be killed would be just as
wrong as going in the army and killing a man ourselves”?
What Belongs to Caesar? introduces a profound ethical question for the Christian church.
More study will be necessary by each church agency.
It will be easy to “let the sleeping dog lie.”
But no one concerned about the evil of war and how to love the enemy can afford to ignore this book.
The genius of this little volume of 97 pages is that it does not clutter the
arguments over war taxes by focusing on the anxieties of the present moment.
Rather Kaufman sticks closely to a biblical and historical analysis. In so
doing he is really asking the Christian conscientious objector if he is
exercising his conscience regarding war at the right place on the right
issues. This is the question confronting the Mennnonite brotherhood. Is now
the time to expand the scope of conscientious objection to include taxes which
buy guns as well as persons who fire guns?
A
letter to the editor
from John H. Herr put him on record opposing war tax resistance, because after
all Jesus told Peter to pay a tax to a warlike government (I assume this refers
to the temple tax episode in the Gospel of Matthew).
Since most of us are Christian citizens of the most militarily involved and
overextended nation in the world the war tax problem should be of special
concern to us who are members of the historic peace churches. But as American
involvement in wars and military solutions grows and grows it is encouraging
to note in Christian circles an awareness of the problem and a growing
uneasiness on the propriety of paying taxes when they are used mainly for war
and war-related purposes. However, there is a bewildering confusion of
responses to that ethical problem.
The key question is then: Can the Scriptures provide us with the means of testing whether or not payment of such taxes constitutes a form of idolatry of a war god and as such be contrary to our commitment to a way of love?
In this context the present study by Donald D. Kaufman’s What Belongs to Caesar? is especially appropriate.
The 100-page presentation followed by 28 pages of Bible references, footnotes,
and an index has all the marks of diligent and careful scholarship. Maybe
you’d expect a book of this nature to be a crusading weapon charged with an
emotional stance for a particular view of the Christian’s relation to the
state and on nonpayment of taxes, but it isn’t. In his first chapter Don
Kaufman carefully examines the history of taxation from ancient times till
today. In chapter two he takes a new look at biblical passages often used to
justify absolute, unquestioning obedience to governmental demands, and urges
us to reexamine them in the context of their full chapter, or better yet, seen
in the total context of the Bible. In this way the write proves that, for
instance, Romans 13:1 and following is not a passage in which every
governmental action is given carte blanche. In no situation should a person be
required to disobey his conscience by submitting to government. Without
becoming a violent rebel the Christian can refuse to do what he regards as
wrong, but he must patiently endure the consequences. To resist with respect
is to render a service to the state by reminding it of its true function. In
chapter three Kaufman squarely plants the argument against the paying of war
taxes under the Christian’s obligation to obey God rather than man.
The records of Anabaptists, Mennonites, and Hutterites are examined in chapter
four, as are the Quaker and Mennonite practices in Colonial America. This
chapter ends with a variety of statements by recent and current church leaders
on the issues of tax objection. In his concluding chapter Kaufman asks anew:
“What Belongs to Caesar?” and why we who refuse our warm bodies to the war
machine so willingly surrender our cold cash to the same. How long, Kaufman
asks, will the Christian pray for peace and pay for war. The answer depends on
you.
No one can give careful attention to this book without having the issues
clarified. It is hoped that this book, developed jointly by the Mennonite
Church and the General Conference Mennonite Church will be widely read,
seriously discussed, and that out of it will come conduct that will
consistently embody the gospel of love we profess.
From here, the pushback became much more defensive. Instead of just saying that
Christians should pay their taxes cheerfully and without question because the
money belongs to Caesar and Caesar bears the responsibility for how it is used,
critics acknowledged the tension between the Christian love-your-neighbor
mandate and Caesar’s kill-the-foreigners bloodthirstiness, but tried to suggest
alternatives to civil disobedience. For example:
Shelly promoted charitable giving as an alternative. “[O]ur norm for
giving is not a government. But, at a time when we are concerned about
certain uses of our tax dollar, it would seem that our first consideration
would be to reduce that tax dollar to the lowest possible point.”
Blosser also suggested charitable giving as a way to lower taxes, saying
in part that it would be more effective than resisting and then having
taxes seized along with interest and penalties seized. “In the end, who
has paid the lesser tax and served to help the most people?”
Stoltzfus suggested income reduction, giving the example of a man who
“turned over his business to God, paying himself a small salary. In this
way the profits were channeled directly into the Lord’s work.”
This is the thirteenth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
began with a backlash against the talk of war
tax resistance that had been spreading in Mennonite circles.
Some brethren are advocating that we withhold part of our taxes to the “powers
that be” as a testimony against the war in Vietnam. With due respect to those
that hold this view I want to give my reasons as to why I pay my taxes. Also,
what appears to me a questionable testimony of those who do not.
The standard Render-unto-Caesar / coin-in-the-fish’s-mouth / Romans 13 stuff
followed. Martin concluded:
I know of no New Testament precedent or teaching that we should disobey God’s
direct command (here pay taxes) as a witness to “the powers that be” against
their evil deeds. This is why I feel I should pay my taxes.
Withholding taxes as a testimony against the Vietnam war may lead some to
believe that we think some wars are all right. For the Christian all wars are
wrong. Also, to be consistent, I may have to withhold some other taxes, even
local, where I feel the money is not spent right. God has established church
and state and their respective duties are far different. Daniel Kauffman in
Bible Doctrine says, “Both church and state are better off if
each remains in his own sphere.” As God’s children we should live as strangers
and pilgrims on the earth.
The Bible says. “Blessed is that nation whose God is the Lord.” I think the
church shares much blame for the state our nation is in. If we would have been
more faithful in reconciling men to God, that it could be truly said we are a
Ghristian nation things would be different. Consistent living and giving the
gospel in word and deed to ungodly men is still the best remedy for the ills
of the world. I do not think as a church we should link arms with the
unbeliever to do this as is done in peace marches
etc. If we are
faithful in this task which Christ has committed to the church, there will be
little time left to try and help direct the “powers that be.” We owe them our
prayers, and also our obedience where we need not break God’s higher law to do
so.
Allen H. Erb, in a
letter to the editor
seconded Miriam R. Stoltzfus’s suggestion of lowering income as a way to
legally avoid income tax, but questioned the assumptions behind the arguments
for war tax resistance:
The plan of withholding taxes is generally presented as a way to give a
testimony to the state against excessive war taxes. The plan usually implies
that general taxes are to be paid. It is not denied that these latter taxes
provide funds for military expenditures.
The logical argument for withholding taxes seems to present the following
syllogistic reasoning:
Major Premise.
Taxes should be paid to the state if military expenditures are
normal.
Minor Premise.
Current war taxes are above normal.
Conclusion.
Therefore an adjustment should be made by the individual person as to the
amount of tax to be paid by withholding this estimated excess.
If payment for excessive military expenditures by the state is wrong why is
it right to pay the normal military tax of a variable limited amount? In other
areas of conduct do we argue that right or wrong is dependent on the quantity
of the act? Is it right to steal a penny but wrong to steal a dollar? Is
paying a small tax for military purposes right and a large tax wrong? Is the
error in the size of the tax? Does the Bible build an ethic on paying taxes
for militarism on the basis of the size of the tax?
Is this not one of those areas where God says in
1 Cor. 5:9, 10,
“Not to company with fornicators: yet not altogether… for then must ye needs
go out of the world.” Is it not true that in the area of taxes it is
impossible to clearly identify the evil and the good and separate them? Is not
the expenditure of taxes the function of the state and not the church?
Is not this difficult dilemma of the Christian in involvement in taxes to be
solved only by a position of distinct separation of church and state? The
church’s main function is to build the kingdom of Christ, the state to
regulate society. “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this
world, then would my servants fight”
(Jn. 18:36).
But fortuitously under our present
U.S. legal statutes
we do have the blessed privilege of diverting a large amount of our assessed
taxes to the treasury of the church. This converts our supposed tax dollars
into the program of spreading the gospel of peace and goodwill. We are allowed
as much as a 50 percent deduction for gifts to nonprofit causes. What a rich
opportunity we have to do good! If the church would accept this challenge of
giving the potential military tax as contributions to the program of the
church our payment to the military would be canceled and the kingdom of Christ
advanced. How the crying deficits of our church programs would be
silenced!!
In Matthew 17:27, Jesus told Peter to go catch that fish and pay our taxes and
there were no questions to be asked like, “Caesar, what are you going to spend
this for?”
(It seems a common interpretation at the time was that the coin in the fish’s
mouth was for a Roman tax; I’d always assumed it was for the temple tax.)
Lloy A. Knis tried to clear up “What Is a Nonresistant Christian?”
in the issue. The Nonresistant
Christian is among other things, he wrote, not a tax resister:
Jesus did not oppose the paying of taxes to Caesar. We hear today men talking
about our tax dollars. They are not ours. They are the government’s.
We pay what is the government’s and what they do with it is not our
responsibility. The church and the state are still different entities even
though we Americans live in a democracy.
As I see it we have missed an important point in the discussion on “Render
therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”
(Mt. 22:21). In practice I
support the position that we should pay all our taxes without asking many
questions. I do, however, want to be open to those who have a conscience
against doing so or have actually withheld certain taxes or portions. The
Amish brethren seemingly have made a point in withholding payments on Social
Security taxes. Possibly we need to be more positive in our witness to the
government in the use of our tax money for war and/or other immoral purposes.
What I am concerned about now is that we have failed to emphasize the last
part of Jesus’ statement in the Scripture referred to, “and unto God the
things that are God’s.” We who profess citizenship in heaven and loyalty above
all loyalties to God should at least be as careful to give God what belongs to
Him as we are to give the state its dues. And as we profess to “seek first the
kingdom of God” it seems we should give Him as much as we do the state. Also
as loyal servants of an almighty, all-knowing God and King we ought to
question less the use to which He puts our funds than we do that which goes to
the state.
Now it seems that as a church in all of these areas we have failed in our
obedience to the last part of Christ’s words in this passage. It is evident
that we have not been as careful to give to God and the church as we have to
give to the state. To the state we give 10, 12, 15, and 20 percent to our
income. To the church 2, 3, 5, and even occasionally 10 percent and more (an
average of about 5 percent). Also it is evident that we often question more
the use of funds in the church than we do the use of our tax money by the
state. (We give to certain causes in the church and will not give to others,
but give unreservedly to the state. How inconsistent can we get?)
My hope and prayer is that the church will take seriously the words of Christ,
“Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the
things that are God’s,” with a renewed emphasis on giving to God. What would
happen in the church treasuries and to the cause of Christ if we were as
faithful in giving to our heavenly King as we are in giving to our earthly
king? Should we not be more faithful?
Roosevelt Leatherman wrote, in
a commentary
that people with a concern about their taxes paying for war ought to be at
least as worried about their investments. (He presented his argument so
carelessly, though, that I wonder whether to interpret it as an intended
reductio ad absurdum.)
A
note in the issue again
shone the spotlight on war tax resisters outside of Mennonite circles:
The Mt. Toby Monthly Meeting of
Friends (Quakers), covering western Massachusetts, is waiting to see what the
federal government will do in response to the refusal of members to pay the
telephone tax they say supports the Vietnam war.
The Quakers have been withholding payment of the tax
because they consider it an
“infringement of religious liberty.”
An inquiry was sent to the Internal Revenue Service asking about legal
penalties and routes of appeal.
“They never answered our letter,” said Laura Robinson of North Amhurst,
presiding clerk of the meeting. Nevertheless, she said, “the only reply we got
was a final notice informing us that they will take the money from our
checking account.”
Members of the Mt. Toby Meeting
take the Quaker peace testimony, first stated by George Fox in
, seriously. Fox, the Quaker founder, said,
“We utterly deny all outward wars and strife… for any end, or under any
pretense whatever; and this is our testimony to the whole world…”
Finally, Mennonite war tax resisters got their voices back. Roy S. Koch wrote,
in “Are Mennonites Anemic?”
():
Several years ago the Mennonites in Elkhart County alone paid three million
dollars in government taxes toward war in one calendar year. By now the annual
take will be much higher. What would happen if these Mennonites would become
radical enough to withhold the 60 percent of the tax that goes for war
purposes? Or better still, if they would give so radically to Christian causes
(up to 50 percent of our taxable income) that there would be little or nothing
left with which to support war taxes? The thought is staggering.
The issue reported on a
“Peacemaker Seminar”
at which “Ways to Avoid Payment of Taxes for War Purposes” was on the agenda.
And a report on the Mennonite Graduate Fellowship conference
noted that “Ted Koontz, Harvard Divinity School… presented an analysis of
reasons for war tax refusal for use in dialogue with those who believe the war
in Indochina is unjust but pay war taxes.”
This is the fourteenth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
War tax resistance really picked up steam in the Mennonite Church in , as the coverage in Gospel Herald shows.
In a “workshop on war taxes” was held “at the Hively Mennonite Church, Elkhart, Ind. Resource persons are Al Meyer, John Howard Yoder, David Habegger, Art Gise, and Carl Landes…” Gospel Herald’s report on the conference noted:
Christian response to war taxes was discussed by about 100 participants in a workshop in Elkhart, Ind.
The weekend was sponsored by the Elkhart Peace Fellowship, the General Conference Mennonite Central District Peace and Service Committee, and other regional church peace and service committees.
Michael Friedmann of the Elkhart Peace Fellowship said many of the participants felt the war tax question involved a shift in life-style to reduce involvement in the military-industrial complex.
Al Meyer, a research physicist at Goshen College, Goshen, Ind., suggested to the group that one does not start by changing the laws to provide legal alternatives to payment of war taxes, but by refusing to pay taxes.
We need to give a clear witness, he said.
Meyer did not oppose payment of war taxes because he was opposed to government as such, but because he did not give his total allegiance to government.
He felt it was his responsibility to refuse to pay the immoral demands of government.
“No alternative will be provided by the federal government until a significant number of citizens refuse war taxes,” he said.
The annual tax collection time is at hand.
How do you respond to the 1040 and other tax forms?
An increasing number of Mennonites are asking what it means to render to Caesar what belongs to him and in particular to render to God what belongs to Him.
Two seminars are planned to study this question: , Akron Mennonite Church; Bally Mennonite Church.
The purpose will be (1) to learn what the Bible says for and against paying taxes, (2) to share with and support each other as the Spirit leads, and (3) to examine what choices are available in nonpayment of taxes used for war purposes.
The schedule allows for considerable discussion time.
Howard Charles, Goshen Biblical Seminary, will be the resource person.…
War Tax Meeting Set
A meeting for people who are disturbed by American policy in Southeast Asia and who question payment of war taxes is planned for at Hebron Mennonite Church, Buhler, Kan. The meeting, sponsored by the Western District Peace and Social Concerns Committee of the General Mennonite Church, will be a time to exchange ideas and tell of actions already taken.
Two seminars on taxes, “Jesus and the 1040 Form” seminars, were held at the Akron Mennonite Church and the Bally Mennonite Church, respectively.
Approximately 70 persons participated.
Howard Charles, Goshen Biblical Seminary, was the resource teacher on biblical passages dealing with taxes.
Other input was given by Melvin Gingerich and Grant Stoltzfus on examples of tax refusal from history.
Wesley Mast presented options in payment and nonpayment of taxes.
Walton Hackman gave a breakdown of the present use of tax dollars, 75 percent of which go toward war-related purposes.
War taxes also would come up at another Mennonite forum, as announced in the issue:
On the Swiss Farm at Bluffton College, Bluffton, Ohio, Mennonite collegians will meet.
, to “rap” about the kind of life-style they want to adopt.
Intentional communities, ways to avoid American materialism and consumerism, how to avoid complicity with militarism through paying taxes that support past, present, and future wars, and the role of women will be ingredients in the discussions of the conference.
Rudolf Gnaegi, Swiss defense minister, has announced that 32 Protestant and Roman Catholic clergy will be prosecuted if they persist in their refusal to perform military service or to pay “defense taxes.”
In Switzerland, all males over 20 — including the clergy — are subject to military service and annual retraining service periods.
Conscientious objection is not recognized.
Those who refuse to serve in the military are liable to prison terms.
The 32 clergymen, all from French-speaking cantons, announced in a joint letter to the Defense Ministry that they would not report for military service nor pay taxes earmarked for defense because they felt the Army served only “economic and financial interests.”
The letter charged further that whenever the Army was used in the country, it was used “against workers, peasants, and young people.”
Mr. Gnaegi, chief of the Military Department, told newsmen it was “incredible” that “in a free and evolving society like Switzerland’s,” clergymen should refuse completely “to share the difficult task of national defense.”
A second issue brought to the Council was that of payment of war taxes.
After extensive discussion, the Council agreed to ask Walton Hackman, secretary-elect of MCC Peace Section, to serve as resource person in further discussion of the issue in the meeting of the Council.
Meanwhile, Council members will take their homework seriously by continued study in preparation for carrying the question to the church.
In “What Belongs to Caesar” (), Robert E. Dickinson explained how he had come around to the war tax resistance position:
Although I was a conscientious objector to war in the Second World War, I have justified the paying of war taxes to myself with the quote from Jesus, “Render unto Caesar…” As violence has escalated in our world I have become increasingly uneasy with this concept.
With the reading of What Belongs to Caesar? a discussion on the Christians’ response to the payment of war taxes by Donald D. Kaufman, I realized that Christ’s statement was not to be taken too literally but needed to be placed in context.
It has become increasingly clear to me that my own reasons for paying war taxes was one of protecting property and job, neither of which are ultimate Christian values.
The now well-documented illegality of the war as substantiated by the publication of the Pentagon Papers and the fact that the individual citizen is to be held responsible for his acts as established in the Nuremberg Trials are further factors in my decision.
As an architect I do not wish to emulate the German architect, Albert Speer, who sold his soul to the state for professional advancement.
It seems to me that Christians who refuse to serve in the military but at the same time pay for war put themselves in the unenviable position of paying someone else to fight their wars for them.
With God’s leading I will do my best not to do this.
Meanwhile, other Mennonites were refusing to pay their war taxes while redirecting them to alternative funds.
The telephone excise tax was a popular target for anti-war activists.
This account comes from the edition:
An increasing number of people are sending war tax monies to Mennonite Central Committee, instead of paying them to the United States Government for military use, said Calvin Britsch, MCC assistant treasurer.
Contributions of tax money are of two kinds, Britsch said.
More people are refusing to pay the federal tax levied on the use of telephones.
This 10 percent tax is seen as a direct source for military expenditures.
People who refuse this tax simply subtract the 10 percent from their telephone bill and send it instead to MCC.
Ron Meyer tried to relax the hold that the traditional Render-unto-Caesar interpretation had on many Mennonites, in his article “Reflections on Paying War Taxes.” This was also the first mention I found in Gospel Herald of peace-tax-fund legislation:
[Render-unto-Caesar summary omitted] When He answers, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,” he doesn’t make a solid commitment one way or the other.
Instead, Jesus makes it apparent that His follower should decide what of his belongs to the government and what to God.
He does not tell the Christian that his tax money should be given without thought to the government, an interpretation that seems to be quite prevalent today.
In contrast to this interpretation, some American Christians now are questioning the morality of voluntarily paying taxes which support the U.S. government’s military policies.
The income tax is the main source of revenue for warfare: 60 to 75 percent of it is used for military purposes.
The 800-member Goshen College Mennonite Church determined that the amount of money its members “gave” for military purposes through the income tax was almost twice as much as church giving in that congregation.
Though Christ’s work cannot be measured by dollars alone, the thought of paying twice as much for war as for the church and its mission of peace is disturbing.
It is almost impossible not to support the war in Vietnam, however indirectly, if one lives in U.S. today.
Even a small purchase may be supporting a company which has been awarded government contracts for war materials.
If one does refuse to pay war taxes, the government will take the amount from his bank account or personal possessions.
The question then arises, “Why resist the tax if you end up supporting the war effort anyway?”
Tax resisters answer this by saying that one’s intention must be more than just trying to “keep his hands clean.”
The real purpose of war tax resistance is to provide a witness against the war and the ways in which tax money is being used for military purposes.
There are various approaches to war tax resistance for one who decides upon this type of peace witness.
Many tax resisters refuse to pay the 10 percent telephone tax that is to be used expressly for war.
The telephone company usually regards this as a matter between the government and the individual (if notified of the reason for the refusal) and will not cut off phone service.
IRS may take the money from a bank account or send men to the home.
Telephone tax resisters have found that talking to IRS men gives them an excellent chance to witness.
Because of the tax-withholding policy of most employers, nonpayment of income taxes is more difficult.
In this case, if there is any extra tax due each year, the resister may refuse to pay this as a token gesture.
Letters of protest sent in with tax forms are also indicative of the taxpayer’s stance for peace.
Some resisters earn less than the taxable income level for their number of dependents.
This level starts at $1724.99 per year for no dependents.
Those resisting in this way pay no income tax at all.
If one is self-employed, it is a relatively simple matter not to pay the 60 to 75 percent of the income tax used for war.
The tax resister simply deducts this percentage from the amount he must give.
This is not to say that the government won’t take the amount eventually from the individual’s personal property.
An alternative to the war tax system, presently under discussion by various groups, is the World Peace Tax Fund.
This proposal, drawn up by a group of University of Michigan law students, suggests that an individual’s tax money that would go for war purposes could be channeled into a world peace fund if he so wished.
This is similar to the Selective Service Conscientious Objector provision in which an alternative to compulsory military service is provided.
If this proposal is put through Congress, it will provide a peace witness that is within the law.
Its inherent danger is that people may become less bothered by the killing if they aren’t paying for it.
Total noncooperation with the Internal Revenue Service, similar to noncooperation with the Selective Service, is not extensive, since IRS is set up for peaceful purposes as well as channeling money for war.
The consequences of war tax resistance have not proven severe so far, yet the decision is weighty, since legally one could be fined and imprisoned for tax evasion.
Most Christian tax resisters hold that if one decides to take this stand, he must remember that his real object cannot be to “keep his hands clean.”
He must be led by a desire to witness for peace and against violence and war.
Even a simple refusal to pay a telephone tax may influence someone to follow Christ’s way of peace.
There are many Christians who are sincerely opposed to resisting the government in the ways that have been discussed here.
And there are many also who feel that by paying war taxes, they are giving to Caesar what is God’s. Whatever a believer’s decision about the war tax issue, it should be carefully and prayerfully considered with the way of Christ firmly in mind.
The Gospel Herald editor, “D.” (John M. Drescher) endorsed this in a editorial: “When approximately 70 percent of the tax dollar is going to war, a foremost frontier of faith may well be the kind of witness we bear in refusing to finance killing.”
He followed this up with a second editorial in the issue — “Taxes for War”:
Approximately 70 percent of income taxes go to pay for war and all of the 10 percent telephone tax goes to pay for war.
What is the responsibility of those who believe that war is contrary to the Spirit and teaching of Christ?
Should we not seek an alternative in paying taxes when the government’s primary need is for our money, just as hard as we sought an alternative service when the government needed our bodies?
Those who understand what is happening in the automated war and have a concern for life are asking questions like the above with growing seriousness.
Some simply dismiss the whole question by saying, “Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and to God the things which are God’s.” Could this be a cop out?
Might Christ not be laying upon us the obligation to decide what is Caesar’s and what is God’s?
Or was He saying that we will need to decide whether we are Caesar’s person or God’s person?
Isn’t it strange that, over the years, many of those who used this Scripture to say that we should pay our taxes without question, did not render unto God even what was required under the Old Testament?
As a church we are even today much more obedient in rendering to Caesar what he demands than to God what is His.
Look at it this way.
Suppose Caesar should demand a 10 percent telephone tax to wipe out Jews or Indians or blacks in the United States.
What would be our reaction?
Would we willingly and without question render it to Caesar?
How would that be different than demanding a 10 percent tax to wipe out Vietnamese?
What would we say if it were levied to bomb Lancaster, Goshen, or Hesston?
Or to bring it closer.
Suppose Caesar would level a 10 percent tax to pay for the extermination of Mennonites.
Would we encourage everyone to “render unto Caesar what he asks for”?
Would such a 10 percent tax be any different than paying a 10 percent tax for killing Vietnamese?
If so, what is the difference?
Since Caesar receives all his rights from God, does not he forfeit these rights when he violates them?
What is our duty to use money to restrain injustice and to advance right?
For additional study help and discussion, order and study the paperback, What Belongs to Caesar, by Donald D. Kaufman, Herald Press.
As a church, we are at the point where we must somehow come to grips with what we will do about giving our money to support war.
Dealing with a problem of this proportion will be costly.
It may demand a different life-style, the loss of property and institutions.
We can be assured, however, that the way of obedience, even though it leads through the wilderness and death, is the way of Christ.
Out of death we believe there is always a resurrection.
And how our world needs resurrection life!
Sixteen years ago, the country told me I had to join the army.
I told them I was a Christian and I could not do it.
Now, the country tells me I must give it money so it can pay other people to fight and kill.
Once again, I must say I cannot, because I am a Christian.
A very large portion of the taxes we pay, as well as a number of special taxes, go directly to help fight the war.
I have told the government that because Jesus said I should not kill, I cannot pay these, and that instead I give that amount to the church to use in helping people our country makes homeless.
At least one speaker brought up war tax resistance at “Mission ” ():
One speaker took the open mike to make a statement on the war in Vietnam.
He felt that the government is not leveling with us.
Therefore, we should find some way to disengage ourselves as a people — perhaps through nonpayment of certain taxes.
Resolutions urging Unitarian Universalists to refuse payment of the telephone excise tax, and calling for strong gun control laws were approved by delegates to the 11th annual Unitarian Universalist Association General Assembly.
Action on the controversial issues was taken by 678 delegates, the smallest number of delegates in the history of the Association.
Stating that the telephone excise tax “was levied specifically by Congress in to finance the war in Vietnam,” the resolution calls on “all Unitarian Universalists to refuse payment of the telephone excise tax” and urges the UU Association “to refuse such payments also.”
Legal counsel for the 375,000-member Association told delegates that refusal to pay the tax is considered a criminal offense carrying a one-year jail sentence or $10,000 fine or both.
Some feedback from Gospel Herald readers followed:
I want to commend your courage in writing the editorial, “Taxes for War” ( issue).
Your words seem clearly to be in the spirit of Jesus.
Asking the question, “Suppose Caesar would level a 10 percent tax to pay for the extermination of Mennonites.
Would we encourage everyone to ‘render unto Caesar what he asks for’?” brings the argument for nonpayment of war taxes home with blunt but true force.
We are personally searching for the Christian way with regard to the payment of our taxes.
Your editorial shed additional light to our pilgrimage.
Thanks for your two editorials recently (“We Merely Pay to Kill” and “Taxes for War”).
They, along with Maynard Shirk’s “Plea from Saigon” and Don Blosser’s "But, Daddy,” point out our silent complicity in financing the destruction, rather than Jesus’ call to love, of our Vietnamese neighbors.
Our silence indicates the complacent neglect of our individual responsibility as Christians and our corporate responsibility as the church to be God’s reconciling community in this world.
We cannot be silent or complacent in our militarized society and still name Jesus our Lord!
Paul said, "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12:2).
It appears that our renewal has not yet occurred.
Our churches have not become God’s liberated zones.
As an ex-VS-er I recently learned that MCC paid about $1,500 in federal telephone tax during alone, a tax that "Vietnam and only the Vietnam operation makes this bill (federal phone tax) necessary,” according to Rep. Wilbur Mills of the House Ways and Means Committee (Congressional Record of ).
Our other church agencies and our churches are no different from MCC in this respect.
As John A. Lapp wrote in the MCC Peace Section Newsletter, , “Each institution has wittingly or unwittingly developed its program not simply because this is what the Lord or the brotherhood wants us to do but also because this is what IRS allows us to do” (italics mine).
Yes, Brother Drescher, we do not have to worry about rendering to Caesar his due, for he collects by force.
But God only receives voluntary service, which we continually cut short because of submission to government or some other reason.
Our fruits indicate what kind of trees we Mennonites are — comfortable, quiet, complacent.
As Jesus’ disciples we must say no to paying for others or machines to destroy our neighbors, just as the Mennonite Church has said no to participating actively in such destruction, as Jesus said no to Peter fighting enemies with a sword.
As we say no individually we must encourage our churches and agencies to also say no to war taxes as corporate bodies, even if it costs something such as the tax exemption privilege, or property, or social status.
Being “renewed of mind” in witnessing to Jesus’ way of reconciling love for all people.
For as disciples we can value nothing more.
In the name of Christianity, let’s keep balanced on this idea of withholding “war taxes.”
Every person that works in any industry or food production, helps to produce commodities that are used by the army.
So why not talk about laying off from work so many days or withholding so many head of cattle?
Even if we did that the army would still get its share of what did go on the market.
And if we hold back part of our taxes, the army will get what it needs out of what we do pay.
In the days when Paul lived, Rome was just as corrupt as America has been, and still Paul says in Romans 13 that we should pay to “all their dues.”
Alcohol is a much worse killer than war is, why not start doing something about it?
Remembering Paul was living under one of the most cruel and bloody governments of all time and he knew that much of the tax money went to pay the Roman army, which not only put wicked people to death but many, many Christians as well, yet admonished the Roman Christians, “Pay your tax” without any strings attached.
In the editorial, “Taxes for War,” () you quote, “Render to Caesar…” and you say, “Might Christ not be laying upon us the obligation to decide what is Caesar’s and what is God’s?”
You are not suggesting that each of us should decide for himself how much tax he ought to pay and what he wants his tax money used for, are you?
That is getting pretty far out it seems to me.
I think Paul is telling us in Romans 13 that the government as ordered by God is responsible, (1) to provide for our needs, v. 3, (2) to protect us, v. 4, and we in turn shall pay the government the taxes that are laid upon us, with no strings attached as to how they should use our money.
The government is not accountable to us but to God and He will hold them responsible for their actions.
Romans 12:19.
May I express appreciation for the good articles in the issue of Gospel Herald which dealt with our response to war.
I was especially glad for the editorial, “Taxes for War,” and for the “Testimony on Taxes.”
My husband and I have been part of a group in our congregation which studied Donald D. Kaufman’s book, What Belongs to Caesar? and as a result we and others have been seeking to live an altered life-style which will proclaim our commitment to Christ’s way of love.
We too have felt that the way of obedience may be costly.
Reading such testimonies in the Gospel Herald gives us courage to continue to learn what discipleship in this area means.
I am glad to hear that you are concerned about war taxes.
I’m sure that a lot of people share this same concern.
However, I must say that your concern is probably little more than the academic cloak worn by the average “pious Christian."
Why do I say this?
There is a very simple answer to the problem of war taxes for the person who is truly concerned.
I’m not talking about the “Oh, isn’t that a shame” set.
I’m talking about those who see the sadness and weep.
Those who lock themselves in their rooms and beat on their mattresses in anguish.
The answer is simply don’t earn enough money to have to pay taxes.
It is the only legal recourse we have at the present time.
Some say they cannot live on that amount of money, and I say hogwash!
Who is your God?
Did He tell you that you need a six-room house?
Did He tell you that you need a new car, a television, or an air conditioner?
Did He even tell you that you need electricity, running water, or a living-room rug?
My God didn’t. My God said, “Love Me more than you love anything in this world.
Love your neighbor more than you love yourself.
Remember the rich man who would not give up his riches to follow Christ.
I say that every one of us is rich, and anyone who cannot part with his riches cannot love the Lord, for we cannot serve two gods.
We can continue with our present stewardship (pittance that it is) and still not have to pay taxes.
I am not suggesting that we quit working, but I am suggesting that we refuse salaries which cause us to have to pay taxes.
A married couple can now earn $2,300 and be exempt from taxes.
A family with children, even more.
I don’t expect very many people to take this seriously, for God only opens the eyes of a few However, I want to express my love to those of you who will think I am a little crazy.
After reading D.D. Kauffman’s book What Belongs to Caesar?, listening to and reading testimonies from tax protesters, and thinking about the subject, I had arrived at about the same conclusions that Bro. Mason presents.
I suppose it is to my discredit that I am unwilling to act on these conclusions as he apparently has done.
It has been said that the entire science of economics is summarized in the statement, “There is no such thing as free lunch.”
And I would like to suggest that our tax liabilities represent that which we owe unto Caesar in return for the material blessings and luxuries that we enjoy under Caesar’s system.
Remember that the Pharisees, who were admonished to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” had confessed their involvement in the Roman economic system by their possession of Caesar’s coinage.
As Bro. Mason has so ably pointed out, it is within our power to arrange our affairs in such a way that Caesar is also willing to reduce our tax liability if we are willing to give the money unto God.
Unfortunately, it costs us 100 cents to give a dollar unto God through the church, and only 20 cents if we elect to pay the tax and keep the dollar for ourselves.
The issue brought news that the Central Conference of American Rabbis had decided to resist the phone tax corporately:
In protest against the war in Vietnam, the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) has instructed its executive vice-president to withhold payment of the federal telephone excise tax which, it said, supports the Vietnam war.
The CCAR said it is the first Jewish organization to approve this act of civil disobedience in protest of the Vietnam war.
The action was taken after consultation with lawyers.
At the same time, the Reform rabbis urged in a resolution the movement’s sister institutions — the Hebrew Union College — Jewish Institute of Religion and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations — to follow a similar course of action.
Individual members of the conference were called upon “as an act of personal moral responsibility” to withhold the telephone tax.
The CCAR has protested the Vietnam war .
A report on the “Lamb’s War” camp meeting noted that a war tax resistance break-out group had formed.
A pseudonymous “Letter to My Home Church” reprinted in the issue mentioned how uncomfortable the churchgoer was with the casual taxpaying and patriotism encountered in the (also pseudonymous) congregation:
I have heard comments from you people like “I’m glad to pay my taxes for the privilege of living in a ‘free’ country.”
Oh yes, Cherrydale has certainly become patriotic.
We pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to IRS each year knowing that 60 percent goes to pay for killing.
The killers rest at ease knowing that they have allowed us an alternative.
We can be conscientious objectors.
There were objections to the “peace tax fund” legislation idea almost from the very beginning, as Richard Malishchak’s “Some Thoughts on Peace Taxes” () shows.
He makes a good effort at rebutting those objections, but it’s interesting to note how few of his defenses still apply to the pathetically watered-down Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act that promoters are pushing today:
Should it be legal to pay for peace?
Some Thoughts on Peace Taxes
by Richard Malishchak
From The Reporter for Conscience Sake
The World Peace Tax Fund Act, which was introduced several months ago in the House of Representatives, has spawned controversy, strangely enough, among the very people and groups who are most in sympathy with the desired goals of the Act.
The Tax Fund Act would permit taxpayers to claim status as Conscientious Objectors to taxation for military purposes.
Small segments of the peace movement which have no interest in tax resistance/objection have naturally been cool to the proposed legislation.
But doubts have been raised even in the tax resistance movement.
The national War Tax Resistance office is deciding this month whether to throw their support behind the Tax Fund Act, and local WTR groups have been encouraging reader responses in their newsletters.
Being a human creation, the World Peace Tax Fund Act is flawed.
Some of the doubts expressed about the Act do have merit.
Yes, there is the danger that individuals would use a Conscientious Objector tax provision simply to soothe their own consciences, while taxes for military expenditures are collected from other people and the killing continues.
But has war tax resistance done any better on this point?
The tax resistance movement has yet to demonstrate that resistance alone is an effective tool.
The money is frequently collected anyway from the resister and used in the general fund, and the resister is liable to become an unwilling war-taxpayer.
Nor is a large-scale prison witness, large enough to effect a change in national consciousness by itself, a realistic possibility.
As important as acts of individual witness are, the military budget remains monstrous.
Ironically the military budget is likely to increase in the coming fiscal year (see the July Tax Talk from WTR, 339 Lafayette St., New York 10012).
It may also be true that legal channels for tax objection would siphon off some potential resisters into the “system.”
But would this number be significant in relation to the new objectors who would otherwise shy away from “illegitimate” protest?
Furthermore, if the government is still getting the money to buy death and suffering, what is the difference whether an individual protester is called a “resister” or an “objector”?
There is naturally a palpable personal difference between the witness of the objector and that of the resister.
But the World Peace Tax Fund Act is no threat at all to those who would continue to choose resistance.
Those who resist war taxation, like those who resist the draft, are in the vanguard of the peace movement and so must be especially careful to avoid the snare of moral elitism, a “more-resistant-than-thou” attitude that may obscure the common goal.
In the case of taxes, the common goal would seem to be to spend more on life and less on death.
And in addition to its overall importance, the Tax Fund Act contains two especially significant provisions toward this end.
First of all, the bill would provide for positive peace expenditures: the objector’s allotted “peace taxes” would not go into the general fund but into the World Peace Tax Fund and from there into designated peaceful activities.
Second, the Secretary of the Treasury would be obligated to inform every taxpayer, on the tax return instruction booklet, of the existence of the Peace Tax Fund and the qualifications for participation.
This provision could be momentous.
Combined with a vigorous tax counseling network, which is already beginning, it could become an effective consciousness-raising instrument.
In recent years, for example, the percentage of Conscientious Objectors recognized by the Selective Service System has been between one and two percent of the total number of registrants.
The vast majority of these men became Conscientious Objectors or recognized they were Conscientious Objectors after being confronted with an actual choice between morally opposite courses of action.
Most taxpayers, however, write their annual check to IRS or claim their refund with a minimum of decision-making.
If informed every year by the government in the official IRS publication that paying war taxes is not an inevitability, would one or two out of every 100 taxpayers choose to pay for peace instead?
If yes, the impact would be far beyond what tax resistance alone can achieve.
Admittedly a hopeful answer to this question assumes a basic “good will” on the part of most Americans, and that lack of information is the best ally of the war makers.
Yet how many of today’s draft Conscientious Objectors knew that they were Conscientious Objectors before they registered for the draft or before they became “draft-eligible”?
Not even a local draft board would deny a Conscientious Objector claim on the grounds that the registrant was not born a Conscientious Objector.
In the words of Joan Baez’ new album, which she dedicates in part to war tax refusal, more and more people must be encouraged to “come from the shadows.”
This is exactly what a Conscientious Objector tax provision would do.
(A recent Detroit poll, incidentally, showed support for the war tax refusal of Jane Hart, wife of the Michigan Senator, by 55 percent of the survey sample.)
If the Tax Fund Act does not cut the military budget directly, it would at least be likely to help produce an awareness of government expenditures that will cause people to think about, and consciously choose, to buy either peace or war, rather than passively “permitting” the government to buy war on their behalf.
This public awareness of where their dollars are going is, in turn, bound to be reflected in the actions of voter-conscious legislators.
If the people truly want peace, it will be easier for them to have it.
The World Peace Tax Fund Act is an important piece of legislation.
It will need all the help it can get, first to be taken seriously by “old guard” Congressmen, and later to be pushed through the wall of opposition that will form.
Draft resisters, military Conscientious Objectors, draft Conscientious Objectors, and tax resisters must begin to form the wedge of support behind this bill.
No one else will.
In “Thankful for What, When You Have All You Need?” (), Atlee Beechy wrote, “We may not be able to do too much about our governments’ (U.S. and Canada) priorities but we should be able to make a frontal attack on our priorities as Christians.
Is it my responsibility that my tax dollars go for military purposes?”
Finally, a report on the MCC Peace Assembly noted that there was a break-out group to discuss war tax resistance.
And “Stan Hostetter publicly declared his objection to war taxes and presented a check to the MCC Peace Section in lieu of tax payments which would be used for war.”
This is the fifteenth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
War tax resistance in the Mennonite Church was finally running on all cylinders by , thanks in part to Gospel Herald editor John Drescher, who had proven himself to be sympathetic to the cause.
In , Daniel Hertzler would take over the helm, but he too had had good things to say about war tax resistance in the past.
The issue reminded readers about the Funkite schism among early American Mennonites, which was prompted in part by Funk’s willingness to pay taxes to the rebellious Continental Congress, which was frowned upon by the orthodox Mennonite community.
This was billed in Gospel Herald as “War Taxes in 1777”.
An article about Christians for Peace in the issue quoted David Bailey, the group’s co-chairman, as saying, “When over 60 percent of our income-tax dollar goes for defense and wars (past, present, and future), do we not need to ask whether the time has not come for questioning this kind of investment in death rather than life, even though our government declares this is an investment in peace.”
Readers also learned of an “Evanston Peace Series” meeting on “War Taxes and Christian Civil Disobedience.”
The issue carried the news that the United Methodists were getting in on the act:
The head of the Wilmington District of the United Methodist Church has pledged his support to a minister who is refusing to pay 60 percent of his federal income tax.
The Rev. Howell O. Wilkins, superintendent of the district, said he did not know what supporting the Rev. Ronald P. Arms would mean, “but I’ll support him.”
Mr. Arms, associate pastor of the 3,100-member Aldersgate Church in suburban Fairfax, has said he will not pay that part of his income tax which he figures goes to “buy bombs and other weapons of destruction.”
The clergyman, the son of missionaries to Chile, has the “respect” of his bishop in his action.
Bishop James K. Mathews of Washington, whose area includes Wilmington, told a reporter he had considered the same form of war protest.
Taxes that Mennonites were redirecting via the Mennonite Central Committee had risen to $4,000 in , and so the MCC decided to establish a special fund for that purpose, according to a note in the issue:
During the past year the Peace Section of the Mennonite Central Committee received $4,000 in contributions made in lieu of tax payments.
This was something of a new phenomenon.
The contributions were unsolicited; they were made by individuals whose consciences would not allow them to pay taxes which were used for war purposes.
Since a substantial number of individuals from the MCC constituency are looking for an alternative way to use tax monies otherwise collected for war purposes, the Peace Section took action at its meeting to establish a Taxes-for-Peace Fund to which such contributions could be made.
It should be clearly understood that contributions made to this fund will not satisfy the Internal Revenue Service.
In a letter to the editor, Titus Lehman mentioned his own aspirations to reduce his war taxes and urged other Mennonites to make more noise about their own war tax resistance or avoidance efforts in order to prod others.
Some anonymous Goshen College students coordinated to make charitable donations, purposefully to reduce their war tax burden.
The issue had the story:
Recognizing a choice, three young persons currently living in Goshen and with an average income of $4000 have contributed a total of $5000 to Goshen College.
They have decided to give their earnings away rather than keep them and pay federal taxes, much of which goes for the military.
Their gifts, received by the college over an eight-month period, were designated for the specially created Agape Student Grant Fund.
The three donors wish to remain anonymous and don’t talk much about their generosity for several reasons.
An important one is: a lot of Christians want to give more money, but can’t. However, they give in other substantial ways, and are blessed by God.
One of them said, “We don’t want others to feel they re not in the kingdom business if they can’t give dollars.”
A second reason is: “If people see our names, they will see only us.
They may miss the value of taking Jesus Christ literally in the realm of giving and sharing.”
A decade after his “Why I Don’t Pay My Taxes” bombshell (see ♇ 6 September 2018), John Howard Yoder was back in the issue:
Recently it was my privilege to observe a brotherly conversation about the meaning of discipleship for Mennonites, which was a significant landmark for me.
It was the kind of event I would wish to see happen more often.
First of all, what happened was that a number of Mennonite brothers and sisters sharing the life of an urban congregation, persons capable of earning their living and finding their place in middle-class society in a comfortable way, met together to see how to be more faithful.
Instead of being satisfied with the pattern of accommodating themselves to the models of comfort and dignity set before us by the media and the neighbors and the examples of many other urban Mennonites, they have been studying together for a considerable length of time searching for more adequate and more contemporary ways of being disciples of Jesus Christ in the modern world.
These persons sought this faithfulness within the brotherhood and within the interpretation of the meaning of discipleship which they derived from the New Testament and Anabaptist history, rather than assuming that they would find better guidance from some other source, some faddish movement, or some new slogan.
Yet they followed the vision of costly nonconformed discipleship to new conclusions, derived from a new reading of where our society is going.
The particular conclusion to which they came was that as nonresistant Christians in a society dominated by the Vietnam war they should not willingly pay all of the taxes being levied by the American government for the prosecution of that war.
The war tax issue has been passed around inconclusively by Mennonite committees ever since the General Conference.
The concern of a committed circle of people within one congregation can perhaps get definite when churchwide specialists cannot.
My concern at this point is, however, not to deal with that issue for its own sake, but only to recognize gratefully the commitment and concern which lay behind the process of search which led to such an independent and potentially costly conclusion.
The second thing for which I am deeply grateful is that this group of brothers and sisters did not take their new sense of leading off into a new church or a separate movement.
They rather shared it with a wider circle of their brothers and sisters; first of all in the local congregation and then in the district conference.
They did not revel in their nonconformity or in their lonely heroism.
They rather asked whether the wider brotherhood could support what they were doing or could correct them.
They sought to make their witness a brotherhood witness and opened themselves to brotherhood counsel.
Third, I was gratefully impressed by the fact that the district conference, when it received this request for comment, took it seriously.
It was not simply negated without a hearing, although certainly a great majority of the people in conference disagreed with it.
It was not simply set aside through procedural artifices on the grounds that it had been raised too late in the conference or that other things were more pressing.
Nor was some dishonest superficial affirmation passed without testing the matter critically.
Instead the conference chose to call a special session to be devoted specifically to the study of this matter as soon as the program could be prepared.
It was this special session that I was privileged to attend.
Fourth, I am grateful that in the preparation and implementation of this planned special session the primary desire was to be open to the guidance of God through His Spirit and the Word and the brethren, rather than to bargain out some compromise or to battle toward a one-sided conclusion.
There was no cheap balancing of “faithfulness” against “relevance” or of the old against the new.
There was an effort to listen both to the voice of Scripture and to “the voice of [our] brother’s blood” (Gen. 4:10).
Those who feel they should withhold a portion of tax monies were not self-righteous about having found a convincing way to do this.
Those who are not sure there is such a thing as an identifiable “war tax” did not for that reason refuse conversation.
There was a readiness on all sides to admit that the problem is bigger than any solutions we have ready for it.
Fifth, I was gratified by the number of people who, without being convinced at all of the rightness of this proposal or even its urgency as an issue, were willing for the sake of the brotherhood to give an extra day and to stretch their imaginations and their charity to hear their concerned brothers.
They gave evidence to a commitment in principle to listen, and of openness to take risks if convinced, which made the search together more than an intellectual game and much more than a counting of votes for and against established positions.
That meeting did not finish dealing with the question.
More will still need to be done.
Perhaps this first session could have done better if there had been other kinds of preparation or other kinds of process: this is not for me to say.
It certainly could have done worse.
I also started noticing periodic articles promoting Peace Tax Fund legislation or giving status on the prospects for such legislation in Congress around this time.
I won’t be reproducing most of those in this series of posts.
…Several families discontinued paying the telephone tax as a response to the group’s study of war taxes…
I have already alluded to another issue which matters to us a great deal.
Many of us came to Portland as conscientious objectors serving in the city’s hospitals, and we continue to be concerned about our response to our government.
As a congregation we have struggled with the issue of paying war taxes.
To us there seems to be an inconsistency between refusing to give our bodies to the cause of war, but being willing to give our income for that same warfare.
We were instrumental in bringing together the congregations of our district for a discussion of war taxes.
Typically, our own responses to this issue have varied: a few in our church have refused to pay a portion of their income taxes designated for military purposes; others refused to pay the telephone tax levied for the Vietnam War; some write letters of protest and concern to government officials; and still others believe all taxes should be paid, no matter what the purpose.
Whatever our responses, we continue to be aware that church must raise her voice against violence and slaughter in our world.
We’ll see whether or how coverage of war tax resistance changes in Gospel Herald now that Daniel Hertzler has taken up the editorial reins.
Hertzler had given a positive review to John Howard Yoder’s war tax resistance announcement back in , so I don’t expect any radical about-faces.
This is the sixteenth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
, Duane A. and
Esther W. Diller sent
a letter
“to the District Director of the Internal Revenue Service… and the
IRS
Collecting Agent… with copies to President Richard M. Nixon; Senator Bob
Packwood; Mr. William Holdner,
CPA;
Marcus Smucker, pastor; Senator Mark Hatfield; Mennonite Central Committee
Peace Section; and the editor of Gospel Herald” that might be seen as a sort of
model for Mennonite war tax resisters:
We welcome this opportunity to contribute personally to the welfare of our
people in this country. For all the benefits we enjoy because of orderly
government, we are very thankful. To pay for all we receive would require much
more than this tax. Yet, this payment brings to sharp focus a question of
loyalties. Let us share something of that with you.
Ancient seers like Isaiah envisioned a kingdom in which “they shall beat their
swords into plowshares… and learn war no more.” Jesus came to model life in
that kingdom. He is now the Lord of that kingdom and its advance guard, the
church. We who belong to His kingdom seek to obey Him in our life together.
One point where obedience to Jesus can conflict with obedience to our
government is here in the payment of this income tax. We want to live in
brother-servant relationships with other persons, just as modeled for us by
Jesus. Yet we are part of a people that total just 6 percent of the world
population but consume 40 percent of the earth’s resources. We are able to
enforce this inequality upon nearly one billion hungry people by spending
lavishly to support the most awesome military machine in human history. In
contrast to Isaiah’s hope, we spend billions for “swords” and pennies for
“plowshares.” We note with dismay, that 30 percent of our personal income tax
payment is designated for current military production. Even this is misleading
because the new unified budget includes large amounts from trust funds over
which the federal government is merely caretaker. Considering the income tax
alone, current military production is actually 48 percent. Adding the costs of
veterans’ benefits and past wars’ debts, one finds we spend the majority of
this tax for militarism. Now we hear the Pentagon Budget Team requesting a
record-breaking $91 billion military budget for next year; this during a
generation of peace!
Frankly, we are torn by the inconsistency of professing to follow Jesus Christ
while we obediently pay a tax used chiefly for military-oriented production.
It seems we must choose who is really Lord! Somehow, we must begin to
implement our call to be a life-conserving force. And in this instance, our
loyalty to Jesus Christ overrides our loyalty to this government.
With a local community of Christian disciples, we have felt led by the Holy
Spirit to express our obedience to Jesus Christ by refusing to pay voluntarily
the 30 percent designated for current military production in our federal
budget. We are paying that 30 percent to the Mennonite Central Committee,
Peace Section Taxes-for-Peace Fund, where it is used to meet needs of persons
suffering because of our militarism.
In view of the constitutional protection of our religious liberties, we
earnestly request that you consider our conscience in this matter by
accounting this alternate payment to fulfill our
income tax obligation. If you account it so,
we, of course, will not deduct it as a charitable contribution on next year’s
return.
With the help of our most trustworthy accountant, Mr. William Holdner, we have
scrupulously computed the tax due. We have no intention to defraud or mislead
you in any way.
We would very much welcome discussion in our home with anyone from
IRS.
This would help us to understand better any problems our action may cause you
in your role as collector of the tax. We will cooperate in any way we
conscientiously can to help you resolve any problems. We very much appreciated
your visit last year, Mr. Pilch, and invite you again anytime you feel it
would be helpful. It is not our purpose to make your life difficult.
Thank you for helping us with this matter.
The deliberate way in which this tax resistance was conducted impressed Norm
Teague, who responded in
a letter to the editor:
The fact that this letter was sent to the powers that be in Washington,
advising them where the 30 percent was going, and sending receipt (if I
understand correctly) shows a step in faith which, it seems to me, we should
be taking as a church.
J.C. Wegner tried to summarize the debate about war tax resistance in the
issue, but gave short shrift,
I thought, to some pro-resistance arguments like (most obviously) the analogy
between conscientious objection to military taxation and conscientious
objection to military service. This was perhaps due to the insistence by some
earlier and influential Mennonite proponents of war tax resistance that their
stand was primarily an act of “witness.”
A Summary of Contrasting Ethical Judgments And a Suggested Stance
Toward Those Who Differ with Us
Nonresistant Payment
Civil Disobedience
Even though Rome was the № 1 military power in the first century,
the New Testament commands the payment of taxes. “Revolutionary
Subordination.”
Governments normally operate from self-interest, not from the will of
God in Christ.
Realistically, tax resistance is futile; the government usually takes
court action to claim the legal tax.
The basic witness of Christians is to be devoted to the building of
Christ’s new humanity, His new covenant people, the church — not a
futile attempt to Christianize a secular state.
A twentieth-century democracy is not fully comparable to the
first-century Roman Empire.
Sufficient pressure from concerned citizens can sometimes modify
governmental policy.
Compelling the state to collect taxes by force can be a witness to
radical Christian discipleship.
Even though the government per se does not recognize
the lordship of Christ, Christian disciples should still witness to the
government of Christ’s lordship and His ethic of love.
Both groups desire to be faithful.
A Christian Stance Toward Differing Disciples
All believers should give their moral support to those Christians whose ethic
they themselves may not feel led to follow: draft resistance, the
non-voluntary payment of tax money used for non-Christian program, and the
like.
Those refusing the voluntary payment of what they consider “blood money”
should not judge those disciples who meekly and regretfully pay their taxes in
accord with their understanding of New Testament directives.
Might the Gordian Knot Be Cut?
As the editor of the Gospel Herald has pointed out,
a bill to create a World Peace Tax Fund has been introduced… If in God’s
providence this good bill should ever become law, Christ’s sons of peace could
then designate that portion of their tax dollars, which is normally used to
pay for wars, to said World Peace Tax Fund — for research, and for
peace-related activities, not for destroying men’s lives.
Until that time, let us give sacrificially for the advance of Christ’s program
on all fronts, let us pray for divine discernment to know His holy will, and
let us cultivate warm agape love one for another.
The Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)
has collected $1.94 from the bank account of a church in Minneapolis because
its pastor and his wife refused to pay the telephone excise tax in
.
Donald D. Kaufman, pastor of Faith Mennonite Church, and his wife, Eleanor,
withheld payment of the tax “in protest against the Vietnam War and
U.S. militarism.”
, the tax has been used to pay the
costs of the Vietnam War. It has been 10 percent of phone bills but starting
this year it is being decreased one percent annually until it is abolished in
. The
IRS
levied the amount against the church’s bank account since the phone used by
the Kaufmans is in the name of the church.
In a recent letter to Congressmen, President Nixon, and other officials, Mr.
and Mrs. Kaufman urged reduction of military expenditures, saying there was no
justification for a military budget of $88 billion in “an era of peace.”
They also called for support of the proposed World Peace Tax Fund Act…
Max Ediger advocated a more confrontational approach, in his
article on
“Freedom”:
Hitler was able to kill over six million Jews because the German people
followed his leading despite the fact that many of them thought it was wrong.
The United States government dumped tons of bombs on Southeast Asia because
all those Americans who were revolted by this action continued to pay their
taxes rather than be imprisoned.
Finally, a pair of articles
( and )
noted that the American Friends Service Committee had lost its war tax
resistance Supreme Court case by an eight-to-one vote.
This is the seventeenth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
In the Mennonite Church and
General Conference Mennonite Church cosponsored a seminar on
“Civil Religion: True and False Patriotism”
According to the Gospel Herald coverage, “[a] number
of special issue groups were formed in which persons struggled with questions
raised during the seminar [such as l]egal implications of nonpayment of war
taxes and other forms of resistance…”
The issue brought news of
Mennonite-inspired war tax resistance sprouting in Japan:
A war tax resistance movement is beginning in Japan.
Started by Michio Ohno, a United Church of Christ in Japan pastor who attended
Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries in Elkhart,
Ind.,
, an organization for “Conscientious
Objection to Military Tax” was formed on in Tokyo. About sixty people attended the first meeting, and a
“general assembly” was planned on
at the Shinanomachi Church in Tokyo.
The objectives of the organization are (1) reduction and eventual abolition of
Japan’s self-defense force (Japan’s constitution prohibits a military) and (2)
encouraging nonpayment of the 6.4 percent of income taxes that support the
self-defense force.
Mr. Ohno, who is now working with Mennonites and Brethren in Christ in the
Tokyo area, started the movement out of his religious convictions. But support
has now grown beyond Mennonites, the Society of Friends, and the Fellowship of
Reconciliation to include other Japanese citizens who question the
constitutionality of the self-defense force.
At the organizational meeting, speakers included Gan Sakakibara, principal of
the Tokyo English Center, "The Historical Development of Conscientious
Objection”; Yasusaburo Hoshino, professor at the Tokyo University of Liberal
Arts, “How to Live Nonviolently — A Theory of Peaceful Tax-Paying”; and Shizuo
Ito, a lawyer who sued the government for having unconstitutional armed
forces, “Struggle for Peace — The World of Zero.”
Mr. Sakakibara told of the history of the Anabaptists and said that nonpayment
of military tax has a long history. Mr. Ito remarked that “the nuclear reactor
of the conscience is being lit today.” Mr. Hoshino compared the cost of food
in social welfare institutions with the cost of the self-defense forces.
Mr. Ohno called Conscientious Objection to Military Tax the first organized
movement of this kind in Japan.
“The time was ripe when we started the campaign,” he said. “We consulted
several scholars of the constitution, and one of the professors said he
himself had wanted to start a movement like this. Somebody else may well have
started a movement like this anyway, even if we did not. We should not just
sit back and wait for the peace to come, but be the peacemakers.”
Mr. Ohno said one of the decisive factors in his becoming involved in
conscientious tax objection in was
an article in The Mennonite last year on the
proposed World Peace Tax Fund legislation in the United States.
Deadline for filing taxes in Japan is in
. “Then we will know how the tax
officials respond to the objection,” Mr. Ohno said.
Another meeting for tax refusers is planned in
, and members of the steering
committee were to itinerate in Kyushu and Okinawa in
.
On ,
Japanese Christians founded a new movement of persons who refuse to pay that
part of their taxes allotted for military purposes. Newspapers have since
reported that an association of lawyers has promised to work with the group.
Susami Ishitani, secretary of the Christian pacifists, wrote: “We have invited
the cooperation of others who share with us the principle of nonviolence.” He
also pointed out that the Japanese constitution contains articles which could
provide the legal base for refusing to see a military or violent solution as
any solution at all. ―Algemeen Doopsgezind Weekblad.
Brother Ohno of Tokyo shared out of his conviction for peace and his current
experience in nonpayment of the military tax portion of his personal income
tax.
Our government’s “permanent war economy” policy should rank high among reasons
peace-making Christians have for (1) finding simpler lifestyles, (2) telling
their congressmen about their continuing opposition to military spending
madness, (3) continuing to reduce their taxable income, (4) finding more ways
to resist the war, (5) allowing the
IRS to
check individual deductions for contributions.
Join the club. If they check my deductions when my Federal tax is over $200,
will they also check me when it falls under $200? They probably will. Time
will tell.
Remember the stability and value of the
U.S. dollar is
related directly to how wisely or stupidly our Federal tax dollars are spent.
Allen R. Mohler, in a piece entitled
“Caesar or God?”
() didn’t have much positive to
say about war tax resistance, and introduced the “why stop at war tax
resistance” line of attack:
If we refuse to pay our portion of taxes that go for military spending, we had
better hold back the “murder tax” (whatever tax money is spent on abortions)
and the immorality tax” (the tax money that is helping unwed persons live
immorally without the responsibility of being parents).
When Jesus was asked the question about paying taxes to the Roman government.
He asked whose image was on the coin? Answer: Caesar’s — and Caesar
represented the political power and leadership of a pagan and militaristic
government. Jesus then said, “Render… to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,
and to God the things that are God’s.” I think we often miss the meaning of
this last part of Jesus’ statement. What has the image of God is God’s — that
is, you and I. The only object or thing created in God’s image is the human
family.
As I understand the teachings of the Bible on taxes, it is to pay — the
governments will ultimately be responsible, whether it is used right or wrong.
To do otherwise is to get our images and rendering all turned around.
The issue having only recently come to life, it was odd to see the following
headline in the issue. I expect
the end of the Vietnam War was probably what was being alluded to.
In connection with his presentations of Mennonite history and principles
throughout the church, Jan Gleysteen has been involved in a lot of study
groups and discussions. He reported that one question which has recently come
up with greater frequency and which has provided the reason for additional
meetings and prayer sessions is the problem of war taxes.
Congregations or fellowships studying Anabaptist heritage this year are
discovering the statements of Grebel, Riedemann, Felbinger, Simons, and others
on this subject and are wondering what a Christian’s contemporary response to
war taxes might be, especially since today’s technological armies need vast
sums of money more than they need men. Individuals and small groups here and
there are actively engaged in studying the issue, but not much help and
information is as yet available from the denominational level. Yet in one
congregation the statement was made: “How to deal with war taxes is an issue
that affects far more of us than the issues of abortion or a study on the role
of women.”
A bit of historical revisionism was at work in a note titled
“Ancestor Worship?”
by Wayne North () that made much
stronger claims for early Mennonite war tax resistance than I have been able to
discern from the record:
If we are glorifying our ancestry… why do some modern-day Mennonites urge the
payment of war taxes and advocate the death penalty when both were condemned
by their early leaders?
Levi Keidel, in the issue,
suggested there was a
“Mennonite Credibility Gap”
that expressed itself in the way Mennonites were approaching the war tax
question:
Now with the proliferation of technological weaponry, the annual
U.S. budget is
dominated by a hydra-headed military appropriation. We Mennonites who have set
our affection upon things of earth, relished the pleasures and conveniences of
affluence, amassed material wealth like everyone else, now say that we will
refuse to pay income tax as our peace witness to government. We are selecting
to apply the principle of nonparticipation in violence, but not of
self-imposed poverty for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.
Is a government official wrong in accusing Mennonites of accepting their
historic principles which concern the state, but rejecting their historic
principles which touch themselves? Is it proper for us to make a corporate
witness to government against payment of income tax when there is little else
which distinguishes us as citizens of another kingdom who give primary
allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ? How can we justify the selective
application of Anabaptist beliefs to our contemporary lives?
Levi Keidel makes a good point against selective discipleship… From what I
observe, however, those who take seriously the idea of nonpayment of war taxes
are often the same Christian disciples who are most conscientious about their
lifestyles. How many affluent Mennonites consider war taxes to be at all
inconsistent with a peace witness? Perhaps the worst “selective” problem we
have is in letting a “select few” be our conscience on both these Anabaptist
concerns. I am grateful for this minority voice which may help others of us to
return to fuller application of the total biblical ethic.
Speakers for an inter-Mennonite and Brethren in Christ conference on war taxes
have been named.
The conference, sponsored by the General Conference Mennonite Church,
Mennonite Church, Brethren in Christ Church, and Mennonite Central Committee
Peace Section, is scheduled for
at First Mennonite Church, Kitchener,
Ont.
Included among the speakers are:
Colonel Edward King
(ret.), director of the
Coalition on National Priorities and Military Policy
(U.S.), and
Major General Fred Carpenter, Canadian armed forces, on “Militarism in
Today’s Society.”
Marlin Miller, president of Goshen Biblical Seminary, Elkhart,
Ind., on “The Christian’s
Relationship to the State and Civil Authority.”
Walter Klaassen, associate professor of religious studies at Conrad Grebel
College, Waterloo, Ont.,
and Donald Kaufman of Newton,
Kan., author of
What Belongs to Caesar? on "Anabaptism and
Church-State Tax Issues.”
Willard Swartley, chairman of the Bible and Philosophy Department, Eastern
Mennonite College, Harrisonburg,
Va., on “The Christian
and Payment of War Taxes.”
Workshops are planned on such topics as “War Taxes and the Bible,” “The
Christian and Civil Disobedience,” “World Peace Tax Fund Act,” "Forms of
Resistance and Legal Consequences,” “Mennonite Institutions and the
Withholding Dilemma, and “Voluntary Service and War Tax Options.”
The conference, intended for “theological and practical discernment on war tax
issues,” is open to all who wish to attend.
Initiative for the conference came from a resolution passed by the triennial
convention of the General Conference Mennonite Church in
in
St. Catherines,
Ont.
Those planning to attend the conference should register by
…
Co-moderators of the conference are Peter Ediger of Arvada,
Colo., and Vernon Leis of
Elmira, Ont.
After the conference, Gospel Herald carried the
following report:
Unlike in some Mennonite peace gatherings of the past decade, the under-thirty
set did not predominate at Kitchener. Laborers, pastors, homemakers, and
teachers shared their concerns. Students from as far as Swift Current Bible
Institute and Eastern Mennonite College made the pilgrimage to First
Mennonite.
Two retired military men gave background for the concern about war taxes at
the first session. Col. Edward
King, U.S. Army
(retired), summarized the ludicrous contradictions between stated
U.S. foreign policy
and actual U.S.
military practice, and tallied up the cost in tens of billions of dollars.
Major-General Fred Carpenter, Canadian Armed Forces (retired), who traces his
martial ancestry to Napoleon, pointed out political and military differences
between the U.S.
and Canada. Stressing the dangers of nationalism, Carpenter called for a view
of land resources which sees them as international property just as the ocean
and the air.
Conference participants were characterized by a keen sense of urgency about
the international arms race and felt some personal accountability for national
policy in their respective countries, the United States and Canada. A basic
cleavage of viewpoint became evident however over the degree of accountability
which Christians have for the nuclear immorality of the governments under
which they live.
The historical record of Anabaptists on war tax issues was reviewed by Walter
Klaassen of Conrad Grebel College and Donald Kaufman of General Conference
Home Ministries Personnel Services. The evidence suggests that most
Anabaptists did pay all their taxes willingly; however, there is the early
case of Hutterite Anabaptists who refused to pay war taxes that were to be
used against the invading Turks.
During the American Revolution some Mennonites did object to paying war taxes;
yet, in a joint statement with the Church of the Brethren (German Baptist
Brethren) they agreed to pay taxes in general to the colonial powers “that we
may not offend them.”
In a biblical/theological paper. Marlin Miller, president of Goshen Biblical
Seminary, defined the relationship of the Christian to civil authorities as
one of subordination rather than obedience or subjection. Subordination, he
said, requires the exercise of discrimination regarding what is due the state
(Rom. 13:7) within a basic
stance that rejects rebellion and violent revolution.
In the second major biblical/theological paper of the conference, Willard
Swartley of Conrad Grebel College examined the New Testament texts on taxes.
“Scripture does not speak a clear word on the subject of paying taxes used for
war. While taxes generally appear to be Caesar’s due, the statements on the
subject contain either ambiguity in meaning
(Mk. 12:17) or qualifications in
the texts that call for discrimination in judgment,” he concluded.
Conference participants felt that the ethical directive as to whether to pay
or not to pay must be found by the community of believers led by the Spirit to
understand the imperative of the total revelation in Christ Jesus.
The summary statement of the conference issues an appeal to the churches and
church institutions to “recognize the extent to which we are subject to the
industrial-military complex” and to “pray for those in authority, that they
will rule justly.” It calls on the church to “awaken a consciousness of the
extent to which our lifestyles are affected by the standards of our consumer
society, and extend a new call to the lordship of Christ in lifestyle issues.”
A response included a call to “bring taxable income below the taxable level by
adjusting standard of living through earning less income, through donating up
to the maximum allowable 50 percent of income to charitable causes, or through
other types of deduction and/or dependent claiming which are legally
allowable.”
Responses recommended for Canadians included to “call upon our government to
legislate against the export of military weapons and systems” and to “affirm
and support individuals who feel led to actions (actual or symbolic) that
focus conscientious objection in particular ways.[”]
Conference planners Harold Regier and Peter Ediger, editors of
God and Caesar, a war tax newsletter from Newton,
Kan., and Ted Koontz of
MCC
Peace Section
(U.S.) indicated
plans to carry on efforts to raise consciousness about war tax and military
issues.
Cassettes of the proceedings at the War Tax Conference held at Kitchener… are
now ready for circulation. The entire set includes six cassettes with
presentations by Col. Edward
King (ret.), Major General
Fred Carpenter of the Canadian Armed Forces, Marlin Miller, Walter Klaassen,
Donald Kaufman, and Willard Swartley. The discussions after the presentations
are also included.…
A couple of history lessons followed. The issue reprinted the petition sent by Mennonites to their
state Assembly in in which they begged
for conscientious objection to military service, noted that they were dutiful
taxpayers, and enclosed a “small gift” as protection money. And the
issue told the story of the
Funkite schism that happened around the same time:
Bicentennial reenactments usually emphasize powdered wigs and antique muskets
to the exclusion of ideas, but a 200-year-old sermon repeated at First
Presbyterian Church in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, this summer put a current
issue in sharper focus.
Costumes and candlelight could not detract from the timeliness of the Reverend
John Carmichael’s sermon, because the
payment of war taxes is no less a problem for us than it was for 18th-century
Mennonites. The Presbyterian pastor had little sympathy with those who
questioned the morality of war, but his sermon tells us what Mennonites were
doing about war taxes 200 years ago.
“Had our Lord been a Mennonist, He would have refused to pay tribute to
support war, which shows the absurdity of these people’s conduct,” he said.
“In Romans 13, we are instructed the duty we owe to civil government, but if
it was unlawful and anti-Christian and antiscriptural to support war, it would
be unlawful to pay taxes. If it is unlawful to go to war, it is unlawful to
pay another to do it.”
Lancaster County Mennonites refused to pay taxes for military purposes in
, according to the Presbyterian preacher,
forcing the authorities to seize their property.
“What a foolish trick those people put on their consciences who, for the
reasons already mentioned, will not pay their taxes and yet let others come
and take their money.”
When the dispute between England and her American Colonies turned to bloodshed
and farmers and storekeepers began drilling at every crossroads, Mennonites
refused to join their neighbors in these “military associations” or to make
contributions for the purchases of rifles and gunpowder.
Instead of helping the war effort, Quakers set up an elaborate system for
distributing aid to war victims in besieged Boston. Mennonites also donated
money for the relief of the poor of Boston. In the Continental Congress recognized the rights of conscientious
objectors and asked no more of them than voluntary contributions “for their
distressed brethren.”
But the peace churches were not allowed to stand aloof. Patriot leaders wanted
their contributions to be an acknowledged equivalent for military service, not
a free gift to the poor. A letter from a Church of the Brethren pastor in
Lancaster County tells how his congregation required the collector to sign a
receipt that the money was intended “for the needy,” but he was afraid it
would be used for military purposes.
When the Pennsylvania Assembly decided to put a direct tax on everyone who
would not join a military unit, with the money appropriated for defense of the
state, Quakers insisted that the tax violated the liberty of conscience
guaranteed in William Penn’s charter. Mennonites and Brethren explained in
their petition to the Assembly:
“The Advice to those who do not find Freedom of Conscience to take up arms,
that they ought to be helpful to those who are in Need and distressed
Circumstances, we receive with Chearfulness towards all Men of what Station
they may be — it being our Principle to feed the Hungry and give the Thirsty
Drink; — we have dedicated ourselves to serve all Men in every Thing that can
be helpful to the Preservation of Men’s Lives, but we find no Freedom in
giving, or doing, or assisting in any Thing by which Men’s Lives are destroyed
or hurt. We beg the Patience of all those who believe we err in this Point.”
Mennonites of that generation saw no distinction between fighting in war and
paying for the weapons of war. “I would as soon go into the war as pay the 3
pounds, 10 shillings, if I did not fear for my life,” Andrew Ziegler, bishop
in the Skippack congregation, declares in .
Since Mennonites, Quakers, and Brethren objected on conscientious grounds to
paying war taxes, while making it a matter of conscience to pay other state
and township taxes, as many documents make clear, forcing them to pay for war
as an equivalent to military service was as much a violation of religious
freedom as forcible induction into the army would be.
The Pennsylvania Constitution guaranteed the
right of conscientious objectors to refuse military service, provided they
made an equivalent contribution in money. But an equivalent of any kind of
military service made exemption on conscientious grounds a sham. The Mennonite
and Quaker refusal to pay war taxes during the American Revolution was thus an
integral part of their refusal to participate in war. If they could be
exempted from militia duty for this reason, it was illogical and a violation
of liberty of conscience not to exempt them from paying war taxes.
The experience of an earlier generation need not be normative, but we would do
well to ponder the witness of the Mennonite Church in the crisis of the
American Revolution and its meaning for our generation.
In the issue, John E. Lapp
summarized Romans 13
and in so doing showed how much the orthodoxy had shifted. Compare this to his
remarks on the same subject in (see
♇ 7 September 2018)!
Paul… continued in [Romans] chapter 13 to call upon all Christians to be
subject to the powers — not to resist the powers, to be subject for
conscience’ sake, and to pay taxes cheerfully. Here we can see how the
citizens of the other world maintain relationships with the nations of this
world and continue their faithful loyalties to the King of kings. One
parenthesis may be in order. (This does not mean that Christians who belong to
the new order will unquestioningly pay war taxes. They may even determine what
really is Caesar’s rightful portion and may even decide to withhold that
portion which is designated for military purposes!)
This is the eighteenth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
The returned us to the new
war tax resistance movement in Japan:
Conscientious Objection to Military Tax, a Japanese war tax-resistance
organization, has published five issues of a four-page publication called
Plowshare.
The latest issue includes an account of Ishihara Shoichi of Shimizu City, a
newspaper dealer who withheld the 6.39 percent of the tax for his shop that
would have gone for military expense in the national budget. While he was
appealing to the tax tribunal, saying that the levying of military tax was
unconstitutional, his bank account was seized. This was the first legal action
against any of the dozen people who have withheld their tax money.
The periodical also includes a report of a speech by Professor Kobayashi Naoki
of Tokyo University, in which he says that “military forces do not defend the
land or the people. What the former Imperial Army really shielded was a
handful of military executives and the imperial family. The present
Self-Defense Forces are deficient for a nuclear warfare or even a conventional
war.”
Another article by Otomo Michio attacks poverty as one of the reasons people
enlist in the military.
Other information includes a guide for filing tax returns and publication
notice of an 80-page booklet “A Shoot of the Olive” on the history of tax
resistance, philosophical and biblical questions, how to file tax returns, and
how to appeal.
The publication, in Japanese with an English summary, is available from Michio
Ohno, 2‒35‒18 Asahigaoka, Hino, Tokyo 191, Japan.
A compilation of Mennonite responses to world hunger, printed in the
issue, included
this one:
“Enclosed find a check for $40 for world hunger. Rather than paying income
taxes, we are sending this check so that we may help to build peace and
support causes that help our troubled world.” (A letter from Colorado to
MCC)
A packet of resources on war taxes has been published by the Commission on
Home Ministries of the General Conference Mennonite Church. The majority of
articles in the packet are speeches given at the inter-Mennonite and Brethren
in Christ war tax conference… in Kitchener, Ontario. Also included are a
report of legal research by Ruth Stoltzfus on institutional withholding of the
portion of income taxes going for war purposes, brochures explaining the World
Peace Tax Fund Act now before the
U.S. Congress, and
statements about war taxes adopted by the Mennonite Central Committee Peace
Section and the Church of the Brethren annual conference. The packet is
available for $1.50 from the Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section…
In the issue
Sem and Mabel Sutter
shared the letter they sent when they paid their taxes under protest.
More than 150 persons from Iowa peace churches met on
at William Penn College, Oskaloosa, Iowa, to consider the theme
“Peacemaking: Living Heritage and Living Challenge.” The main purpose of the
conference, sponsored by Mennonites, Quakers, and Church of the Brethren, was
to introduce materials and ideas that congregations could use in promoting
peace.
Donald D. Kaufman, of Newton,
Kan., gave the keynote address:
“Our Taxes Buy Wars? The Peace Church Heritage.” He traced the history of the
three denominations’ struggles over whether Christians can pay for war when
they refuse to participate in it.
Some early church leaders in America advocated not offending the government,
and thus paying all taxes. In others groups, especially among Friends, members
were disciplined for supporting war in any way. The decision not to support
war was not easy, and it was often accompanied by persecution.
[Disciples] will stand up for the rights of all people. My father and others
have refused to pay war taxes, willing to pay a fine instead when
IRS came
to collect.
A television segment about Mennonites hit British television, and the
issue
described it this way:
The Mennonite segment begins in Europe with episodes from Martyrs
Mirror, then switches to modern Mennonite events… [such as] a Sunday
school debate on church-state issues with such topics as war taxes, Vietnam,
and growing up as a conscientious objector in a public school.
The delegates took action on two statements presented by the Bishop Board, one
on “Funeral Practices” and another on “The Christian Conscience and Tax
Dollars.”
More controversial was the statement on taxes which included two proposals: 1)
increased giving to the church with the resultant increased tax deductions; 2)
seeking an alternative tax provision similar to alternative military service.
The second statement included a reference to the World Peace Tax Fund, which
made some persons uncomfortable and so this was eliminated from the text. The
statement was passed with some negative votes. In addition to those who felt
the statement went too far were several who thought it was simply not radical
enough in dealing with the “problem of wealth.” “It amazes me,” said one,
“that though we can make money, we have trouble getting rid of it.”
Paying war taxes seems to be a problem for some. In Romans 13, after giving
some of the duties of the “powers that be” including the use of the sword, it
follows, “for this cause pay ye tribute.” To be consistent, those that
withhold war taxes must withhold all other taxes, including local, that are
not spent right. I do not believe at any time we have to break one Scripture
to keep another one.
The war tax issue generated the most lively discussion. Cornelia Lehn, a
Foundation Series writer, gently forced the issue when she asked headquarters
not to withhold that portion of income tax she felt helps the government
prepare for war. An amendment to the resolution, “A call for congregational
study on civil disobedience and war tax issues,” would have permitted
headquarters to honor her request. But the conference turned down the
amendment 1,190 to 336. The issue will continue under study for the next 18
months.
Phil M. Shenk, student at Eastern Mennonite College, has been awarded first
prize in the C. Henry Smith Peace Oratorical contest with an oratorical essay
entitled “The World Peace Tax Fund and Faithfulness.” He challenges the fund
as a means of faithfulness. He says the fund would not reduce the military
budget and may lull the consciences of nonresistant persons. … The C. Henry
Smith Trust, named for a leader of another generation, makes prize money
available, and the Peace Section of
MCC
arranges for the judging of entries.
Shenk’s essay was reprinted in the issue (it is given there in roughly the same form as it appeared in The Mennonite — see ♇ 28 July 2018 for the text).
Elmer Borntrager threw some cold water on things in an off-handed way when
he wrote
in the issue:
In answer to a question regarding the paying of taxes, Jesus said to the
Pharisees, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caeser’s; and
unto God the things that are God’s”… There have been some questions raised as
to the propriety of paying war taxes by those of us who do not believe in war.
I suppose there is no easy answer to this question, but it seems the majority
of the people of the non-resistant faith quite literally pay all the taxes
required by Caesar.…
This is the nineteenth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
The Mennonite Church Peace Section
(U.S.) met on
. I found
this cryptically-worded note
in a Gospel Herald report about the meeting:
The arms race and war tax questions remains a vital one. Its focus seems to be
shifting from tax withholding to the issue of civil disobedience for
conscience and God’s sake.
A Christian’s response to civil authority will be given concentrated emphasis
by the General Conference Mennonite Church during . The study is an outcome of a resolution at the triennial
conference in Bluffton, Ohio, . That
resolution called for a thorough study of civil disobedience leading to a
special conference , which is
intended to state an official position of the General Conference with respect
to that portion of income taxes which are used for funding military
expenditures, and in general, to research the whole question of
obedience-disobedience to civil authority.
Responsibility for the study has been given to the peace and social concerns
committee of the Commission on Home Ministries. They, however, requested that
a special obedience-civil disobedience committee be formed to give general
direction and leadership.
To date three major aspects of the study have been planned — an attitudinal
survey, an invitational consultation in ,
and a study guide to be ready by the fall quarter.
Included in the survey are 28 questions chosen to provide an inventory of
congregational attitudes toward the authority of the church and of the state.
It will also indicate attitudes to particular issues such as abortion, capital
punishment, and payment of taxes for military purposes. A copy of the
questionnaire will be sent to every congregation. If the congregation decides
to use the survey it will be duplicated locally to save on costs. After the
conference the same questionnaire will
again be used to determine whether the churchwide discussion on
obedience-civil disobedience has generated any changes in attitudes.
A second major happening is scheduled for at Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Elkhart,
Ind. An invitational
consultation will bring together about 30 participants, including persons not
committed to civil disobedience. The gathering will include administrative
personnel from the General Conference, lawyers, biblical scholars, as well as
representatives from Mennonite General Committee and the Mennonite Church.
It is expected that the study guide will evolve from the proceedings of the
consultation. Five of the 13 lessons in the guide will focus on peacemaking in
a technological society. What sort of peacemaking should Mennonites be about
in an age of nuclear warfare and worldwide arms shipments? The remaining eight
lessons will center in the meaning of civil disobedience. Was it practiced in
the Bible? Is nonpayment of taxes a case in point?
The study process will culminate in the special midtriennium conference
scheduled for . That gathering
will be an official decision-making conference to which congregational
delegates will come. At that point a decision on the meaning and practice of
civil disobedience will be made.
There was a followup in the
issue. From the coverage, I get the impression that the Mennonite Church was
playing spectator and taking a wait-and-see attitude:
If debate among members of the General Board of the General Conference
Mennonite Church is the litmus test of what it means to be a discerning
church, then the denomination is pointed toward an exciting future. The two
issues, war taxes and fundraising, were the preeminent concerns during
meetings in Newton, Kan.,
.
Although thorough reports were heard by the 16-member board on all aspects of
programming — overseas mission, education, home ministries — and dozens of
decisions were made, the two keynote issues were civil disobedience and how to
communicate the need for increased giving.
During the first session on , Board
members locked onto the planning for the midtriennium conference on war taxes
and civil responsibility. Uneasiness about the process erupted quickly. The
structure of the invitational
consultation on the issue was strongly faulted, as was the conference itself.
Board member Ken Bauman, pastor of First Mennonite Church in Berne,
Ind., galvanized his
colleagues with his allegations. “The consultation is not structured for
dialogue — it is monologue. The way it has been set up upsets me deeply.”
Later he declared that the Commission on Home Ministries should not serve as
the launching pad for the study and the planning leading to the conference in
. “Why ask
CHM?
The image of
CHM
is stacked. It should be the responsibility of the General Board.”
His assessment was the beginning of a fruitful debate which occupied several
more sessions of the General Board, one session of
CHM,
hallway discussions, and coffee confabs.
The debate crystallized about several key questions. What is wrong with the
study process initiated by the obedience-civil disobedience committee of
CHM?
Is the issue of war taxes so divisive that a schism in the General Conference
is inevitable? Is the delegate
conference viable?
By ,
perhaps symbolically, the hard-hitting process of charge and counter-charge
had evolved into understanding and affirmation of the original plans. On paper
little had changed, but in the minds of those who spoke for the
“unheard” — the “conservatives,” the “common person,” and the
Canadians — there was a restoration of confidence in the process. Tenseness
was dissipated.
The consultation will meet at
Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Elkhart,
Ind. About 25 persons are
invited. These include theologians and biblical scholars, attorneys,
administrative staff of the General Conference, several
MCC
staff, and representatives from the Mennonite Church and the Mennonite
Brethren Church. The proceedings of the consultation are to serve as the basis
for a study guide on civil disobedience.
Asked about his personal goals for the peacemaking initiative, the pastor
listed: 1) a more radical community in all three denominations that will break
down barriers in talking about peace with other Christians and non-Christians,
2) a radical change in our attitudes toward material things, and 3) a unified
position on the problem of war taxes.
Fahrer has recently finished work on a four-unit war tax Bible study guide. He
anticipates its publication by Ohio and Eastern Conference.
The Lancaster Conference had its own war tax study guides in the works, as
shown in these excerpts from the
and
issues:
Mennonites and War Taxes is a 28-page booklet by
Walter Klaassen which traces the history of the war tax issue in Anabaptism
and suggests how Mennonites might relate to that history. It was first
published by the Lancaster Conference Mennonite Historical Society but is now
published by the Commission on Education of the General Conference Mennonite
Church. Copies of the booklet may be ordered from Faith and Life Press…
“Honoring God with My Tax Dollars” is an excellent little pamphlet that deals
with some big questions. Produced in (and
revised in ) by the Peace Committee of
Lancaster Mennonite Conference, this piece was prepared as “a study guide to
be used in congregational or group discussion settings.” A bibliography of
related resources is included at the end. Available at no cost from Lancaster
Mennonite Conference…
The world arms race, nuclear threat, and militarism were the backdrop for a
discussion of war tax resistance. The Section reaffirmed its
recommendation to Mennonite institutions “to
study the conflict between Christian obligations and legal obligations in the
collection of federal taxes, especially when employees request that war taxes
not be withheld from their wages, and that institutions be encouraged to honor
such requests.”
Some disappointment was expressed that, with a few exceptions, constituent
conferences and congregations of
MCC
have not wrestled with the war tax question.
A cross-organizational consultation on how Christians ought to behave in
relation to the governments they live under was held in
:
Five themes — the nuclear menace, taxes for military purposes, the lessons of
biblical and Anabaptist history, faithfulness, and effective
witness — dominated a consultation on civil responsibility in Elkhart,
Ind.,
. In its sharpest focus the
issue was how Mennonite institutions should respond to those employees who
request that the military portion of their income taxes not be withheld by the
employer. Under current law employers must deduct income tax from payrolls and
remit the tax to the government.
Several Mennonite organizations are facing the issue. The General Conference
is seeking the will of its 60,000 members in answering such a request from one
of its employees, Cornelia Lehn. The consultation in Elkhart was one part of
the discerning process leading to a delegate assembly, and a decision in
.
Bible scholars, theologians, pastors, administrators, attorneys — twenty-nine
persons in all — presented papers, exchanged insights, and probed the issue.
Much of their analysis will be incorporated into a study guide to be published
by .
A findings committee — Palmer Becker, Hugo Jantz, Elmer Neufeld, John Stoner,
Larry Kehler — drafted a statement. After hours of discussion and subsequent
changes the persons at the consultation agreed that the statement fairly
represented their thinking.
Some excerpts from the statement are listed below:
“Our Christian obedience has to find new and creative responses to the
proliferation of military weaponry and technology…
“Christians respect the governing authorities… which leads to a broad
range of activities in support of the public good. Nevertheless, at times
our call of prior obedience to God’s sovereignty leads us to disobey the
claims of the state…
“We… have differing convictions about refusing to pay taxes for the
military.
“Let us be open to the possibility that the Spirit of God may lead some of
us in a direction that is both prophetic and full of risks.
“We agree that a way should be sought which will facilitate the expression
of the convictions of conference employees who request that their taxes
not be withheld.
“We need to seek the counsel of and work with other Mennonite groups and
denominations, particularly the Historic Peace Churches, in developing the
most appropriate response to this issue.”
While delegates from nearly every government in the world met at the United
Nations to debate whether they should continue the arms race, some 30
Mennonites representing North American conferences met at the Associated
Mennonite Biblical Seminaries to debate whether they should continue to pay
for it. Most Mennonite delegates likely knew something of the
U.N. Special
Session on Disarmament although probably none at the
U.N. knew about
the Mennonite meeting. The two groups had in common a deep concern about the
crushing momentum of the arms race which places in jeopardy the very survival
of the human race.
The Consultation on Civil Responsibility was initiated by the General
Conference Mennonite Church with the support of the Mennonite Church and
MCC
Peace Section
(U.S.) for
discussion of paying taxes used for military purposes. Christians living in
nations with nuclear weapons face a crisis of faith and morals. Such
Christians live amidst wealth that is heavily generated and protected by
military/economic systems whose focus is the perfecting of weapons for
massive, indiscriminate global destruction. How can the church give a faithful
and credible witness that its trust is not in these powers of death but in the
life-giving power of Jesus Christ?
Mennonite Central Committee was represented at the consultation by four staff
persons — William Snyder, Reg Toews, Urbane Peachey, and John Stoner.
MCC’s
interest in the war tax question grows out of (1) Peace Section’s assignment
to explore issues related to the historic Mennonite and Brethren in Christ
testimony of peace and nonresistance, (2) MCC’s administrative problem with
war tax withholding, and (3) the relationship between the arms race and world
hunger. Janet Reedy of Elkhart,
Ind., attended in a dual role
as a member of
MCC
Peace Section
(U.S.) and as a
representative from the Mennonite Church.
The question of tax collection came up as a part of the report from Peace and
Social Concerns secretary, Hubert Schwartzentruber. In increasing numbers,
workers in church institutions have asked that their federal income taxes not
be deducted from their paychecks so that they may refuse voluntary payment of
the part of their taxes that goes for military purposes.
The Board reacted to this possibility with caution. For one thing, to fail to
collect taxes is a federal offense. All persons responsible for such refusal
are liable to prosecution, from the lowest to the highest in terms of
responsibility. Also there was expressed a strong opinion in favor of positive
instead of negative witness for peace, a position separated from civil
disobedience on the one hand and civil religion on the other.
The question of tax withholding was designated for further study.
We readily pay our taxes. In paying our taxes, we not only pay for the many
services we receive from the government, but we also pay to help care for the
needy among us and beyond our borders. In willingly paying our taxes, we still
have the opportunity to be critical and communicate our concerns about how the
money is being used such as in military spending. We remember it is through
paying our taxes that good is promoted and evil restrained.
And in
an interview with John Howard Yoder
in the same issue, he complained that the church had been lagging on coming to
a sensible consensus about war taxes:
Where is our Mennonite peace testimony in danger?
We are not any clearer than before on the old problems such as separatism,
civil disobedience, and tax resistance. We have made no progress in
fashioning creative responses to these issues. They are talked about but
there is no united action.
War tax resisters in Japan were back in the news as well. Michio Ohno spoke at
the Mennonite World Conference, Peace
Interest Group, giving his talk a provocative title:
Over 80 Japanese citizens did not pay all or part of this year’s income taxes
or asked for refunds, says Michio Ohno, Japanese minister who spoke on war tax
resistance in Japan at the MCC-sponsored
Peace Interest Group at Mennonite World Conference. Ohno is chairman of the
Mennonite and Brethren in Christ Evangelical Cooperative Conference.
Ohno was introduced to pacifism while studying at the Mennonite Biblical
Seminary in Elkhart, Ind., in
. He was pastor of a church in
Kyodan for six years and for the past year has taught English and led Bible
studies in his home.
Ohno says he became involved with war tax resistance in
when he owed the
U.S.
[sic] $4.40 in taxes. “I was troubled by the table on the
back of the income tax form which stated that 6.5 percent of the tax money had
been used for the military’s so-called “Self-Defense Forces” during the
previous year.
“Shortly before, I had read in The Mennonite
periodical about the World Peace Tax Fund Bill, a
U.S. legislative
measure, which if approved would allow conscientious objectors to rechannel
their tax money to nonmilitary purposes. This idea impressed me because I knew
that as a pacifist, I could not pay for war and war preparation.
“The next day I visited Gan Sakakibara, one of Japan’s leading Anabaptist
scholars, to discuss this. I remembered his answer to a high school boy who
had once asked him why Christians were not persecuted like the early
Anabaptists had been.”
He answered, “That is because we are not true Christians. We are not good or
bad. We are not the medicine or the poison. If we were, we would be
persecuted.”
Ohno said he visited the tax office and explained why he could not pay the
tax. “I told them I didn’t mind if they took my possessions.”
A group of people favoring conscientious objection to war taxes began meeting
in Sakakibara s home.
When a civil lawyer sued the state for repayment of his tax money, believing
that conscientious objection to war taxes was legal, he was invited to speak
to the group. The lawyer’s visit resulted in the formation of Conscientious
Objection to Military Tax
(COMIT),
a citizens’ group of 250 members including Mennonites, Quakers, Catholics,
Buddhists, and nonbelievers.
COMIT
now holds summer study seminars and publishes “The Plowshare,” a bimonthly
paper.
The 80 people who have not paid their taxes for this year have received
notices demanding payment, but none has been arrested and no property has been
seized. Additionally, 120,000 members of the General Conference of Trade
Unions in Japan have asked for a tax refund to express their desire for peace.
“A huge olive tree grows up from a tiny pit,” he concluded. “We are sowing
olive pits and tending seedlings. Someday there will be a stout olive tree,
and one of the big branches, I hope, will be conscientious tax objection.”
The “New Call to Peacemaking” initiative was ramping up, with Mennonite
participation:
During the last year, 26 regional New Call to Peacemaking meetings, involving
more than 1,500 persons, took a new look at the teachings of their churches
with special attention to violence, war, and peace.
The Wichita, Kan., group gave
its encouragement to “individuals who feel called to resist the payment of the
military portion of their federal taxes. The Wichita meeting also asked its
churches and agencies to discontinue collecting taxes from its employees so
that “they can have the option to follow their consciences in war tax
resistance.”
When the national New Call to Peacemaking conference convenes in Green Lake,
Wis.,
,
it will be receiving requests from the regional meetings for a strong position
on tax resistance proposals. It will also be asked to give guidance to
individuals and church organizations on approaches to tax resistance.
The Green Lake Conference, which will be attended by some 300 members of the
three sponsoring Peace Churches (Brethren, Friends, and Mennonites), will look
at theological issues as well as matters of economic and social justice,
including respect for human rights.
The New Call to Peacemaking conference is just around the corner. It is
scheduled for
at Green Lake, Wis. Invited
to the meeting are 300 Brethren, Friends, and Mennonites. Leaders of the
conference have called for effective steps toward international disarmament
and support for the United Nations,” saying that “mutual trust and cooperation
are the only bases for long-term national and international security.” Citizen
action, refusal to pay war tax, and other measures will be considered as ways
of undercutting war. The Green Lake meeting, according to Dale Brown, Brethren
theologian who will open the conference, will issue a call to the peace
churches and those who sympathize with their aims to take new risks.
Two films on television commercials and a slide/cassette set on war taxes have
recently been added to MBCM
Audiovisuals, the rental library of Mennonite Board of Congregational
Ministries… “Conscience and War Taxes” is an excellent 20-minute color slide
set/cassette presentation produced by the National Council for a World Peace
Tax Fund. It traces the history of the
U.S. income tax,
gives information on the military budget, and examines some of the economic
consequences of military spending. The World Peace Tax Fund is discussed as a
legal alternative to paying for war which could provide more than two billion
dollars for funding peaceful solutions to world problems and at the same time
provide more jobs for peaceful pursuits than are currently provided by
war-related industries. The “Conscience and War taxes” slide set, cassette
tape, and a resource packet can be obtained from MBCM Audiovisuals…
“New Call to Peacemaking generated 26 regional meetings in 16 different areas
of the U.S. during
,” reported Maynard Shelly to the conference in a summary paper, “A
Declaration of Peace.” The records showed that more than 1,500 people were
involved in those meetings and they generated 170 pages of reports,
statements, and resolutions.
When asked what he expected to come out of this conference, before the
sessions began, Peter Ediger, of Arvada,
Colo., said, “Words, plenty
of words.”
A number of delegates, for instance, were calling for “dramatic action,”
whatever that might have been. As it turned out, because of the task
orientation of the conference, the “action” was a statement agreed upon by the
assembled, which covered the waterfront, but probably pleased only a few.
One of the central themes which stirred the most emotions turned out to be
war-tax resistance. This was an issue the Mennonites felt strongly about.
Those presenting the issue wished for action that would have given them a
context for action. As in the case of the “dramatic action,” so much desired
by some, this desire was also frustrated.
Organizers and conference leaders had projected the Green Lake meetings to be
a working conference. The meetings were set up to assure some kind of action
and/or product. Finally, after much careful shifting on the part of the
findings committee, and public discussions that were sometimes hotter than
illuminating, the conferees agreed to approve a revised statement of the
findings committee. This heavy emphasis on task fulfillment almost restricted
the creative work of the conference too much, according to some observers.
But, of course, the conferees had been informed of the nature of the
conference beforehand.
The findings statement was accepted by most participants, yet could count on
ownership by few. Besides the document, inspiration, fellowship, and sharing
that went on, there was little to show for everyone’s efforts. Nevertheless,
“We see this not as the end of our journey but as the beginning stage of a
continuing pilgrimage,” read the statement.
A world alternative to taxes for the military was endorsed and encouraged. And
while the “children of the sixties” worried about war taxes, the younger set
was most concerned about conscription, which seems to be looming over the
horizon.
“We’re releasing a new focal pamphlet in
titled The Tax
Dilemma: Praying for Peace and Paying for War. Peace is central to our
theology, not an option added on.”
The issue gave a preview of
the upcoming General Conference Mennonite Church midtriennium meeting which
they had convened especially to hash out the war tax withholding issue:
The program for the midtriennium conference of the General Conference
Mennonite Church (GCMC) has been finalized.
As an official meeting of the denomination delegates will discuss the nature
of a Christian’s civil responsibility, particularly the question of a
Christian peace position in a militaristic society. For some participants the
question is whether the withholding of payment of the military portion of
their income taxes is justified. If so, then several employees of the GCMC
would like the denomination to stop remitting the military portion of their
taxes to the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS).
For , the
issue will be debated in the Leamington Hotel in Minneapolis,
Minn. If the conference
delegates decide that nonpayment of military taxes is justified the decision
is binding on the administrators of the GCMC.
Impetus for such an assembly began in when GCMC
employee Cornelia Lehn requested the General Conference business office not to
remit the military tax portion of her paycheck to the
IRS.
Prior to , the issue of “war taxes” had been
discussed, and as early as , delegates at the
triennial sessions in Fresno,
Calif., passed a statement
protesting the use of tax monies for war purposes. The delegates also said,
“We stand by those who feel called to resist the payment of that portion of
taxes being used for military purposes.” However, the General Board of the
GCMC
did not think that directive from the delegates authorized them to stop
remitting Lehn’s military taxes. Her request was refused.
Three years later, St.
Catharines, Ontario, was the location for the next conference. There delegates
called for education regarding militarism, reaffirmed the
statement, and agreed that serious work be
done on the possibility of allowing GCMC
employees to follow their consciences on payment or nonpayment of military
taxes.
Educational materials have included the periodical God and
Caesar and two study guides. The Rule of the Sword and
The Rule of the Lamb. In addition to these efforts two major
consultations were convened in
and in . At these consultations
scholarly papers were presented on militarism, biblical considerations for
payment or nonpayment of military taxes, and Anabaptist history and theology
related to war tax concerns.
Despite the protracted input, the General Board could not reach a consensus on
the issue. Consequently the problem was brought to delegates at the
triennial conference in Bluffton,
Ohio. At this juncture the delegate body committed itself to serious
congregational study of civil disobedience and war tax resistance during
. The delegates
also decided to discuss the issue in detail at a midtriennium conference in
.
In an effort to implement the Bluffton
resolution an eight-member civil responsibility committee was formed. Several
actions were taken by it to encourage serious study.
an attitude survey on church and
government was conducted. Approximately 2,500 responses were received,
including 463 from a select sampling in 31 churches. A scholarly consultation
was held in . One of the key ideas
which came out of this consultation was whether those who feel strongly about
not paying military taxes should be encouraged to form a separate corporation
within the General Conference. To assist churches in their study of the issue
two study guides were published. The Rule of the Sword deals
primarily with facts and concerns related to militarism. The Rule of the
Lamb centers in the sovereignty of God and biblical texts on taxes and
civil authority.
Each of the more than 300 congregations in the GCMC
is being encouraged to prepare a statement to bring to the
conference. It is evident from the sale
of the study guides that a minority of congregations are actually making an
effort to study the issue, although all congregations have received sample
copies of the guides. Many Canadian churches feel the issue is strictly an
American problem, and there is a considerable diversity of conviction and
thought among American congregations. Some congregations do not intend to send
delegates.
What this means for the Minneapolis conference is difficult to assess, except
for one feature. There will be a lot of stirring debate. After
of searching will there be some
resolution of the withholding question? No one is predicting the outcome.
My job is managing public communications for a large organization. In simple
terms, I’m a propagandist — one who, according to my dictionary, spreads
ideas, facts, or allegations deliberately to further a cause.
Interestingly, the root of this widely misunderstood word is in a division of
the Catholic Church established to propagate the faith,
i.e., to ensure that the church membership
continue to be convinced of the church’s teachings and that others might
become so convinced. Church-owned periodicals, such as this one, can thus
rightly (and proudly) be said to be propagandistic.
As a propagandist, I am writing to point out some of the things I see in the
current reporting by the Mennonite press of the war-tax-resistance movement.
Not surprisingly, the reason I am writing is because I do not agree that
resistance, nonviolent coercion or force,
etc., are highly
ethical strategies for Christians or that, specifically, war-tax resistance is
an effective tactic in achieving peace.
Please understand that, while I personally think that war-tax resistance is
getting considerably more than equitable coverage in the Mennonite press, that
is not my point of concern. Rather, it is the aspects of that coverage that I
believe Mennonites should question. These are:
First, source. The articles seem overwhelmingly to originate in the several
information offices of Mennonite boards and agencies. Like me, the authors are
propagandists who, it can be assumed, for whatever reasons, are producing
releases representing their own biases or those of the persons employing them.
Second, style. The articles on tax resistance are written as news stories, not
as expository pieces which are the common vehicle for the expression of both
majority and minority opinions in the Mennonite press.
The last concern, and closely related to the second, is perspective. By
adopting the news-reporting style, the tax-resisting position is presented as
a given, accepted method of Christian witness. This style boldly assumes that
not paying one’s taxes is widely held among Mennonites as Christ’s way, as
well as that tax resistance is a rational means of bringing peace to the
world.
Am I suggesting that Mennonite papers quit giving space to the tax-resistance
movement? Definitely not. Nor, even that such coverage be necessarily reduced.
For, despite my personal feelings, I am interested in the faith of my brothers
and sisters who feel Christ is calling them to resist taxation.
Rather, I’m suggesting that coverage continue, but in the form of exposition,
advocacy, and response; that brothers and sisters who are tax resisters be
invited, even urged, to present the scriptural and other bases of their
convictions and actions. And the same goes for other practitioners of
nonviolent direct action: marching, sitting-in, disruption.
While the rest of us are waiting for these articles to emerge, brother editor,
I would not want to be guilty of demanding that this or any other subject be
suppressed. But, I know at least a few of us wonder sometimes if
demonstrations and acts of resistance are really the most newsworthy events
going on in the Mennonite subdivision of Christ’s kingdom.
Hubert Schwartzentruber with
a commentary
in which he wrote:
It is no secret that our nuclear capabilities have brought the whole world to
the brink of suicide and murder. Yet only a few people are blowing the
trumpets of warning. There is still strong resistance by most Christians even
to think of becoming war tax resisters. There seems to be little urgency to
adopt a lifestyle which would model peace for all the peoples of the earth.
The courage to confront the principalities and powers seems to be lacking.
Was it true that the growing war tax resistance movement in the Mennonite
Church was beginning to lose its momentum?
This is the twentieth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
In , the Mennonite Church had the luxury of
being by-standers as the General Conference Mennonite Church wrestled with the
war tax issue, and in particular about whether to continue to withhold income
taxes from the salaries of their employees who were conscientious objectors to
military taxation (the Mennonite Church would get its own chance to wrestle
with these issues a bit later on), at a special mid-triennium conference on the
issue. Meanwhile, disgruntled conservative Mennonites met at the Smoketown
Consultation, Peace Tax Fund advocates ramped up their campaign, and the New
Call to Peacemaking pushed the Peace Churches to step up their game.
As a result, there was a plethora of war tax resistance-related content in
Gospel Herald that year.
“The federal income tax is the chief link connecting each individual’s daily labor with the tremendous buildup for war,” Donald D. Kaufman observes in his new book, The Tax Dilemma: Praying for Peace, Paying for War (Herald Press: ).
“Preoccupied as some citizens are with paying too much tax, I suggest that the crucial issue has to do with the purpose for which tax monies are used,” Kaufman maintains.
“While a young person can be exempted from personally serving in the Armed
Forces, no one is easily exempted from making contributions to the military
leviathan.” In his book, Kaufman considers issue of the two kingdoms. After a
brief examination of the biblical background, he traces the history of
conscientious objection to war taxes. He discusses a dozen viable options
which concerned Christians can use “to register our faithfulness to Jesus
Christ as Lord and our opposition to corporate war making by the state within
which we live.”
[W]hat words can we say to our brother in his new responsibilities? Lawrence
Burkholder in the consultation on
taxes and war initiated an intriguing discussion on the manager (or the
administrator) and the prophet and corporate responsibility. He observed that
with only a few incidental references, "the Bible is almost solidly against
those who assumed responsibility for institutional life" (a distressing word
for a biblical scholar on his inauguration).
Ray Horst reported that two staff members have said they would want to
consider a personal response on war taxes should Mennonite Board of Missions
seek alternatives to such withholdings. The directors acted to continue
discussions with other Mennonite groups and Mennonite Church agencies on the
war tax question.
There has been much discussion about the appropriateness of paying for war as
we pray for peace. Some have sought ways in which they can refuse to pay
federal income taxes and thus give a concrete witness against the militarism
which plagues the
U.S. and many other
countries of the world — even, alas, poor countries.
The focus on income taxes may obscure the fact that there are many other
federal taxes which are also used to support the national defense
establishment. In fact, in the personal income tax provided only about one half of the
non-trust fund U.S.
federal revenue. The other half came from a variety of sources such as the
corporation income tax, excise taxes (on many items such as telephone service,
air travel, automobile tires, gasoline, and especially alcohol and tobacco),
estate and gift taxes, and customs duties.
Can we avoid paying these taxes? Not completely, but we can reduce the amount
we pay by the simple device of not buying at all the things which are harmful
and by reducing our expenditures for all other items by holding down our
standard of living. The United States tax law is very generous in allowing
deductions for making contributions to churches and charitable institutions.
(The Canadian law is less generous.) Up to 50 percent of income may be
deducted.
These charitable gifts will first of all reduce sharply the amount of federal
income tax we pay — in some cases even avoiding the tax completely. But in the
second place, since the gift to charity will reduce our remaining disposable
income we will have reduced our standard of living and thus will have to pay
less of the hidden taxes which also support the defense establishment. The
corporation income tax, for example, is one third the size of the personal
income tax.
Although the check to pay the corporation income tax is sent to the government
by the corporation, rest assured the corporation will, if they possibly can,
pass on the tax to the consumer in the form of higher prices for the things
the corporation sells. If we don’t buy the product, we aren’t paying this tax.
Reducing our standard of living as a means of avoiding federal taxes has an
important additional benefit. It is a powerful witness that we are disturbed
by the disparities in wealth and income throughout the world. Our lives should
demonstrate that we can get along without buying the multitude of things an
affluent America deems important.
A report on an protest at Titan Ⅱ missile base
noted that “Also scheduled for the same day will be a nonviolent protest at the
Wichita offices of the Internal Revenue Service, designed to draw attention to
tax money being used for military expenditures…” And
a separate report on a protest at Rocky Flats said that
“On ,
tax resisters made statements about their refusal to pay for war in a press
conference outside the
IRS
office.”
The issue brought news of the
Quaker war tax resisters Bruce & Ruth Graves’ court battle:
A Quaker couple from Ypsilanti, Michigan, attempted to claim a “war tax”
credit on federal income tax returns, but has lost an unusual case before the
U.S. Supreme Court,
the Associated Press reports. The court left intact lower court rulings that
Bruce and Ruth Graves, as conscientious objectors, may not claim such a
credit. The couple had sought a refund of the portion of their taxes used for
war materials.
, the Graves have converted the
“foreign tax credit” on their federal tax forms to a “war tax credit” and
entered only 50 percent to the income tax otherwise due. Each year they have
asked a refund but not received it. So after failing to get the couple to sign
corrected tax statements, the government initiated action to collect the
“deficiency” even though it had already collected the correct amount. The
appeal argued that the government’ s action violated the Graves’
constitutional right to freedom of religion.
Catholic priest John M. Garvey also fought the law and the law won, a bit. The
Gospel
Herald had the scoop:
Father John M. Garvey gave up his car for Lent. Actually, the Internal Revenue
Service hauled it away on Ash Wednesday. It now sits amid big, drab army
trucks behind a fence topped with barbed wire 20 miles away in Mobridge,
S.D. It is there
because the Roman Catholic priest has not paid income taxes as a protest
against military spending and the federal government’s treatment of Indian
people.
Without a car on the South Dakota prairie, the priest has been walking more,
hitchhiking, and riding buses. “It’s been inconvenient,” he said, and when he
does he gets some puzzled looks. “But it’s no big dramatic thing. I’m not
standing out there shivering to death.”
John K. Stoner, in the issue,
imagined
the conversation
between a taxpayer and his or her Maker in the aftermath of a nuclear
holocaust:
There was a blinding flash of light, an explosion like the bursting of a
million bombs, and in an instant everything was burning in a huge ball of
fire.
The first time it was the Flood.
But next time the fire… It was the End.
Afterward a prominent evangelical leader was being quizzed by his Maker.
“You say you were taken by surprise. But didn’t you know it might happen?”
“Well, yes, Sir. I guess I did, Sir. But You see, Sir, they…”
“Wasn’t anybody talking about the fantastic risks involved? But not risks
really. It was a certainty. As predictable as death and taxes.”
“Well, Sir, I can see it now. But hindsight is always better…”
“What do you mean, hindsight? Couldn’t you discern the signs of the times?”
“Well, Sir, we were kind of busy…”
“Doing what?”
“Well, Sir, some of us were searching for remnants of Noah’s Ark. We thought
if we found it maybe they would believe in You…”
“But surely you weren’t all hunting Noah’s Ark?”
“Well, Sir, not exactly. But a lot of people who weren’t hunting it were
watching movies about the search. And then we were busy defending the Bible.”
“Why didn’t you know it was going to happen? Surely there were people warning
you. In fact, I had assigned a few Myself to sound the alarm.”
“Well, Sir, You see, Sir, those people… I don’t know quite how to say this…
er… they didn’t believe the way we… er… I mean I…”
“Did you think you could go on building three more bombs a day forever and not
blow things up?
“Well, Sir, You see, I thought You would look after those things. I didn’t
think it would happen unless You wanted.
“Women nursing infant babies? Children swinging on the side porch, playing in
the lawn sprinkler? An old man reading his Bible? Millions of people, burned
up?”
“Well, sir, in retrospect it does look rather overwhelming. I’m not sure it
was really fair. But then, things were getting rather bad, what with
communism, homosexuality, welfare, big government, pollution…”
“And capitalism, national security, the good life, nuclear deterrence.”
“Well, Sir, I hadn’t thought of those things as…”
“Why not?”
“Well, Sir, You see, the people who talked about those things were not… er…
Bible believing. As an example, they talked about resisting war taxes, even
though the Bible says, ‘Render unto Caesar…’. Things like that…”
“You paid your taxes?”
“Well, Sir, yes, Sir, I did.”
“Every penny?”
“I think so, Sir.”
“Are you saying that I am responsible for this fire and your tax dollars were
not?”
“Well, Sir, I… er…”
“Next!”
Allan W. Smith responded in a
letter to the editor,
saying that Christians should beware of inadvertently putting themselves under
an Antichrist who promises worldly peace at the expense of abandoning Biblical
truth:
In Stoner’s depiction of the scene of judgment day, it is to be observed that
Jesus dictum, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,” is
contradicted. It is not to be supposed that Jesus and Paul, who both told
people to pay their taxes, were ignorant of the way that Rome got and held its
power. Taxes are, after all, not freewill gifts to the state, and we may well
be grieved with the way the state uses them. However, we must all live by our
Word-enlightened consciences.
A proposed Mennonite Church statement on militarism and conscription,
originally drafted by MBCM
staff members Hubert Schwartzentruber and Gordon Zook in consultation with
several other persons, was presented. The Board gave the statement extensive
discussion and some refinement, and unanimously approved the document for
submission as a recommendation from MBCM
to the General Board for presentation to the
Mennonite Church General Assembly. The statement contains sections on peace
and obedience, use of material resources, Christian service and conscription,
and militarism and taxation.
That article also noted that the Mennonite Board of Congregational Ministries
met and approved a “task force to represent the Mennonite Church in cooperation
with the General Conference Mennonite Church committee on conscientious
objection and tax exemption.”
Sensing the radical nature of his comments on the theme, “The Way of Peace,”
Schwartzentruber said that he could be taken to jail if he put into action his
beliefs on such issues as war taxes and conscription. If he had to go to jail,
he said, it would be easier to go with brothers and sisters in the faith.
Peacemaking is the way of Jesus, but it has to be the work of the church and
not of individuals alone, he said.
Representatives of the Mennonite Church gathered in Waterloo,
, and
war tax resistance was on the agenda
but was overshadowed by other concerns about draft registration:
Debate over the proposed statement on militarism and conscription was centered
in two subpoints. One counseled Mennonites not to comply with any military
registration law that might be passed by the
U.S. Congress if
the Department of Defense and not civilians would be responsible for the
registration program. The other point counseled administrators of church
schools not to comply with any legislation which might be passed that would
require them to provide information about their students for purposes of
registration.
Noting that passage of any such registration bill is very much in doubt,
Linden Wenger, Harrisonburg,
Va., told fellow delegates,
“It seems to me we’re being a bit premature in making an issue of these two
items.” Wenger also said that he “will not hinge my decision” on whether to
support compliance with a registration law on whether it is administered by
civilian or military personnel.
Other delegates, including John E. Lapp of Souderton,
Pa., responded that it
was important that the items in question not be deleted.
In the amended statement which was finally approved, the two items were
combined and weakened slightly, but were retained. A subpoint urging “careful
biblical study” on the issue of war tax payment was added. In addition, the
statement was upgraded from “guidelines” to a full statement of position.
The eventual statement on militarism and conscription that came out of the
Waterloo conference on was
reprinted in Gospel Herald. It included the following
section:
We recognize that today’s militarism expresses itself more and more through
expensive and highly technical weaponry and that such equipment is dependent
upon financial resources conscripted from citizens through taxation.
Therefore,
We encourage our members to pursue a lifestyle which minimizes such tax
liability through reduction of taxable income and/or increase of tax
deductible contributions for the advancement of the gospel and the relief
of human suffering.
We endorse efforts in support of legislation which would provide
alternative uses for taxes, paid by conscientious objectors to war, which
would otherwise be devoted to military purposes.
We encourage our congregations to engage in careful biblical study
regarding Christian responsibility to civil authorities including issues
of conscience in relation to payment of taxes.
We recognize as a valid witness the conscientious refusal to pay a portion
of taxes required for war and military efforts. Such refusal, however, may
not be pursued in a spirit of lawlessness nor for personal advantage but
may be an occasion for constructive response to human need.
We encourage our congregations and institutions to seek relief from the
current legal requirement of collecting taxes through the withholding of
income taxes of employees, especially those taxes which may be used for
war purposes. In this effort we endorse cooperation with the General
Conference Mennonite Church in the current search for judicial,
legislative, and administrative alternatives to the collection of
military-related taxes. In the meantime if congregational or institutional
employers are led to noncompliance with the requirement to withhold such
taxes, we pledge our support for those representatives of the church who
may be called to account for such a witness.
On ,
Robert C. Johansen
(“president of the Institute for World Order”) spoke at Goshen College and
boosted war tax resistance:
Johansen encouraged his listeners to become part of a “new breed of
abolitionists,” to take a more active stance, even if this included refusing
to pay war taxes and refusing to be drafted. He reminded his audience that
those in opposition to slavery had also defied the law in order to bring about
change.
Gordon Zook, in the issue,
wrote that the whole economy was distorted towards militarism, and took a
sort of sideways look at tax resistance in that context:
One current issue of obedience is the militaristic mentality which keeps
producing new weapons systems at the expense of basic human needs. So much of
North American “abundance” results from the distorted values and priorities of
our militaristic economy. Many are wondering, how to repent of such
involvements including questions of responsibility for the use of tax
revenues.
In the same issue, John K. Stoner was back to urge
conscientious objection to nuclear deterrence
which necessarily meant action before the nuclear war, not just
options to be held in reserve for after the war started:
Mennonites who believe that the Bible teaches conscientious objection to
military service should also be conscientious objectors to the concept and
practice of nuclear deterrence. We have expressed conscientious objection to
military service by refusing military service, whether by refusing to put on
the military uniform, going to prison, doing alternate service, or emigrating.
We should express our Conscientious objection to the concept and practice of
nuclear deterrence by publicly rejecting the myth of nuclear deterrence,
denouncing the idolatry of nuclear weapons, refusing to pay war taxes, and
identifying with resistance to the nuclear madness.
Mennonites should do this because the concept and practice of nuclear
deterrence is a form of military service in which the entire population has
been conscripted. The concept of nuclear deterrence epitomizes the spirit of
war. The practice of nuclear deterrence is to war what lust is to adultery,
and whoever engages freely in lust should not consider himself innocent of
adultery. As E.I. Watkin has said, it cannot “be morally right to threaten
immoral conduct.” To plan and prepare for the annihilation of millions of
people is a culpable act in the extreme, and whoever does not deliberately and
explicitly repudiate the concept and practice of nuclear deterrence
participates in the act.
The U.S. branch of
the international Roman Catholic peace movement, Pax Christi
USA,
initiated informal contacts with General Conference Mennonite peace
spokespersons .
Rural Benedictine College at Atchison,
Kan., provided the setting for
the sixth annual convention of Pax Christi
USA,
at which Mennonites Bob Hull and Don Kaufman of Newton,
Kan., led a workshop on tax
resistance and the World Peace Tax Fund Act. Interest in this was strong.
About 40 persons, including some tax resisters, participated. In a private
meeting with Sister Man Evelyn Jegen, executive secretary of Pax Christi
USA, and
Gordon Zahn, a Catholic conscientious objector in World War Ⅱ, Hull, Kaufman,
and William Keeney of Bethel College, North Newton,
Kan., explained the General
Conference Mennonite Church resolution on war taxes. Mennonite Central
Committee Peace Section’s Christian Peacemaker Registration form received
active interest at the convention, particularly during a workshop on
“Militarism in Education.” The possible resumption of registration and perhaps
the draft in the
U.S. is stimulating
regional Pax Christi groups to promote conscientious objection to war by
Catholic youth.
Resolutions concerning the
Iranian-U.S. crisis,
SALT
Ⅱ, and the proposed World Peace Tax Fund were passed at the fall meeting of
Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section
(U.S.),
Nov.
30–Dec. 1 at Akron,
Pa.
Section members also agreed to postpone a decision on a resolution to support
war tax resistance campaign until they could have further dialogue with
constituent members…
The World Peace Tax Fund
(WPTF) bill
now before Congress also received an endorsement from the Peace section group.
The bill would provide a legal means for conscientious objectors to channel
the portion of their tax dollar which now goes for the military budget to be
used in a special fund for projects to promote world peace.
The section said in resolution “that it is conscious that the
WPTF
legislation might not in itself force a significant reduction in military
spending, but it recognizes that it would provide funds for peacemaking
efforts and would be a witness against military spending. The section
continues to support other forms of witness against military spending,
including persons who refuse to pay war taxes.”
Although Peace Section has given staff time to the promotion of a better
understanding of
WPTF in its
constituency, it had not before been a formal sponsor of the bill.
Peace Section has also established a bureau of Christian speakers available to
address congregations and other groups concerning
WPTF.
Federal court convicts Mennonite in Illinois war tax resistance case
Bruce Chrisman, 30-year-old General Conference Mennonite, was convicted on
by U.S. District
Court in Springfield, Ill.,
of federal income tax evasion.
Chrisman, who lives in Ava in southern Illinois, was charged with failing to
file a tax return in . Actually Chrisman did
file a return in and other years for which
the government said he failed to file. But the returns did not contain the
financial data the Internal Revenue Service contends constitutes a legal tax
return.
Chrisman attached letters to his returns saying he objected on religious and
moral grounds to paying taxes that support the
U.S. military. His
defense lawyers said the government had to prove that he “willfully” failed to
file a return — that he knew what the statute required and purposefully
decided not to comply.
At a three-day criminal trial Chrisman said, “The returns I filed with the
IRS were
in accordance with the dictates of my conscience and religious beliefs and the
IRS
code.”
He testified that his father never hit him and that “guns, even cap guns, were
never allowed in our home.”
The prosecuting attorney read Romans 13, Luke 20:20–26, and Matthew 17:24–27
and asked Chrisman, “Don’t you believe in the Bible? Doesn’t it state here you
should pay taxes?”
Chrisman said, “The government is not the supreme authority in my life, but
Jesus Christ is.”
In the closing arguments to the jury the prosecution said Chrisman’s “joy” and
“peaceful composure” exposed his lack of deeply held religious beliefs.
James Dunn, Mennonite pastor in Urbana,
Ill., observed the trial. He
said evidence of Chrisman’s character and of his pacifism were not allowed as
testimony by the judge, J. Waldo Ackerman.
During the pretrial hearings, Ackerman allowed Robert Hull, secretary for
peace and social concerns of the General Conference Mennonite Church, and
Peter Ediger, director of Mennonite Voluntary Service, to testify about
Mennonite witness against war and conscription of persons and money for war
purposes. But the testimony was disallowed at the trial.
One of Chrisman’s attorneys, Jeffrey Weiss, in addressing the 12-member jury,
argued that Chrisman’s religious beliefs and his conscientious objector status
during the Vietnam War should exempt him from paying that portion of his
federal income tax that supports the military. “He did not try to hide behind
the shield of religion to rip off the government but honestly believes he is
exercising his constitutional rights to religion.” he said.
Chrisman, married, with a two-year-old daughter, faces up to one year in
prison and a $10,000 fine The verdict will be appealed to the
U.S. Court of
Appeals in Chicago.
A pair of articles advertised seminar on war tax resistance that would be held
at Laurelville Mennonite Church Center in
:
Does Caesar ask for only what belongs to him?
Should there be a Mennonite consensus on paying or not paying war taxes? These
and related questions will be the agenda for a seminar at Laurelville Church
Center, .
The seminar is entitled “War Taxes: to Pay or Not to Pay?” It is jointly
sponsored by the Church Center and Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section.
Persons on both sides of the issue are encouraged to participate. More
information is available from Laurelville Mennonite Church Center…
“War Taxes: To Pay or Not to Pay?”
is the title of a seminar cosponsored by
MCC
Peace Section and Laurelville Mennonite Church Center. Persons on all sides of
the issue are encouraged to participate as such questions will be raised as:
What belongs to Caesar and what to God? What are these taxes buying? What are
the alternatives? More information is available from Laurelville Mennonite
Church Center…
The GCMC Mid-Triennium
This was the first Gospel Herald report from the
General Conference Mennonite Church special mid-triennium conference on war
taxes:
Debate was vigorous and heated as more than 500 delegates from the General
Conference Mennonite Church and some 200 visitors met
to discuss how Christians should respond to the nuclear threat and to massive
expenditures for defense. War tax resistance, or the refusal to pay for the
military portion of the federal budget, was among possible responses discussed
at the meeting, held in Minneapolis.
A few delegates present at the first day of the conference said the church
should not act as tax collector for the state through withholding taxes from
employees’ paychecks. But most of the delegates present the first day said
that while they were troubled by worldwide military expenditures of over one
billion dollars daily, the church as a corporate body should not engage in
illegal activity in its witness against war preparations. Instead, speakers
urged alternatives such as pressuring congressional representatives to reduce
defense expenditures, eliminate the arms trade, and to increase aid and trade
to Third World countries. A few observed that Mennonites contribute to the
disparity in living standards around the world through their affluent
lifestyle.
A sentiment often expressed, however, was that the church, while avoiding
illegal actions, should actively support its members who engage in civil
disobedience on the basis of conscience.
Roy Vogt, economics professor from Winnipeg, Manitoba, berated the assembly
for loading the responsibility for witness upon isolated individuals. “It is
morally reprehensible,” he said, “to give only moral support. We must provide
financial and legal support for those prophets who have arisen from our
middle-class ranks.”
In contrast to the social activists at the conference are Mennonites like Dan
Dalke, pastor from Bluffton, Ohio, who castigated the social activists for
making pacifism a religion. “We will never create a Utopia,” he said. “Jesus
didn’t come to clean up social issues. Our job is to evangelize the world. A
peace witness is secondary.”
Some of the statements were personal. A businessman confessed that while he
could easily withhold paying military taxes on the basis of conscience, he was
frightened. “I am scared of being different, of being embarrassed, of being
alienated from my community. Unless I get support from the Mennonite church, I
will keep paying taxes.”
Alvin Beachy of Newton, Kan.,
said the church seemed to be shifting from a quest to being faithful to the
gospel to being legal before the government. Echoing this view, J.R.
Burkholder of Goshen, Ind.,
said, “The question is not who is most faithful, but what does it mean to be
faithful?”
A follow-up article in the
issue filled in some blanks:
General Conference Mennonites voted
to launch a vigorous campaign to exempt the church from acting as a tax
collector for the state.
Five-hundred delegates, representing 60,000 Mennonites in Canada and the
U.S. passed the
resolution by a nine to one margin. Charged with responsibility to implement
the decision is the highest policy-making body of the General Conference
Mennonite Church, the General Board.
Heinz Janzen, executive secretary for the denomination, said the decision will
increase political activism among Mennonites, a group which has traditionally
kept distant from legislative activities.
Delegates met
in a special conference to discern the will of God for Christians in their
response to militarism and the worldwide arms race.
Some Mennonites are practicing war tax resistance — the refusal to pay the
military portion of federal income tax. This was a central focus of debate
during because one of the
employees of the General Conference has asked the church to stop withholding
war taxes from her wages. In , Cornelia Lehn,
who is director of children’s education, made the request on grounds of
conscience. Her request was refused by the General Board because it would be
illegal for an employer to not act as a tax collector for the Internal Revenue
Service.
Although delegates to this convention affirmed that decision, they instructed
the General Board to vigorously search for legal avenues to exempt the church
from collecting taxes. In that way individuals employed by the church would be
free to follow their own conscience.
The campaign to obtain legal conscientious objection to war taxes will last
three years. If fruitless the question is to be brought back to another
meeting of the church.
Activists in the church were not completely satisfied with the decision. They
would prefer that Cornelia Lehn’s request be granted. These delegates spoke
for an early First Amendment test of the constitutionality of the church being
compelled to act as a tax collector.
Nevertheless, Donovan Smucker, vice-president of the General Conference and
from Kitchener, Ont., said of
the decision, “Something wonderful is happening. We are beginning to bring our
witness to the political order.”
Vernon Lohrenz, a delegate from South Dakota, observed, “We must proceed in
faith, and not in fear. If this is the right thing to do, God will take care
of us.”
From the discussions on taxation, it seemed the issue will not easily be
resolved.
Implementing the decision of the General Conference Mennonite Church “war tax”
conference in Minneapolis has
not been easy.
The Minneapolis resolution mandated a task force on taxes to seek “all legal,
legislative, and administrative avenues for achieving a conscientious objector
exemption” for the General Conference Mennonite Church from the withholding of
federal income taxes from its employees. (About 46 percent of
U.S.
federal taxes are used for the military.)
Two meetings of the task force have been held. The task force has been
expanded to include representation from the Church of the Brethren, the
Friends, and the Mennonite Church. This group of 11 is expected by the
participating churches to establish the legal, legislative, and administrative
agenda of a corporate discipleship response to military taxes.
At their second meeting () the
task force members rejected administrative avenues. Within the scope of
U.S. Internal
Revenue Service or Revenue Canada regulations, this would involve extending
ordination, commissioning, or licensing status to all employees of church
institutions. It was a consensus of the task force that this would be an
administrative loophole. It would not develop a conscientious objector
position in response to military taxes.
However, both the judicial and legislative options will be pursued
simultaneously. Plans for the legislative option are the more developed.
For the legislative route to work, says Delton Franz, director of the
Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section office in Washington,
D.C., the
problem of conscience and taxes will have to be defined carefully. Currently a
paper focusing on the reasons the General Conference has a major problem of
conscience with collecting taxes from its employees is being drafted. After it
has been reviewed, it will be sent along with cover letters by leaders of the
historic peace churches to members of Congress who represent major
constituency concentrations or sit on key subcommittees. Later on, church
members will also be asked to write letters. It is important, says Franz, to
define the problem of conscience in such a way that it will motivate Senators
and Representatives to work vigorously for the bill.
Another follow-up to these initiatives will be a visit to Washington of the
most influential peace church leaders to solicit support from selected members
of Congress and to obtain a sponsor for an exemption bill.
There is a possibility that a parallel task force will emerge in Canada. Ernie
Regehr, director of Project Ploughshares, Waterloo,
Ont., notes the necessity of
defining the question of militarism in Canadian terms for Canadians; for
example, arms export revenues. Regehr in attempting to gather a Canadian task
force. Heinz Janzen, general secretary of the General Conference Mennonite
Church, is convener of the war tax expanded task force. Mennonite Church
members are Winifred Beechy, secretary for peace and social concerns under the
Board of Congregational Ministries; Janet Reedy, member of the Mennonite
Church committee on tax concerns; and Gordon Zook, executive secretary of the
Board of Congregational Ministries.
A New Call to Peacemaking
The “New Call to Peacemaking” campaign continued.
Another conference
was announced for :
workshops will deal with conflict
resolution, tax resistance and the World Peace Tax Fund, economic conversion
and the arms race, and resources for peace education.
Campaign organizers assert that interest in the “issue of conscience and war
taxes” has been growing recently. It was given a “high priority” by the New
Call to Peacemaking national conference in Wisconsin.
Results of the conference
(which had apparently been pushed back a few weeks) were reported by Winifred
N. Beechy:
More war-tax opposition
A group of 30 to 40 church people met on , at City Church
of the Brethren, Goshen, Ind.,
to consider the moral dilemma faced by Christians who are opposed to war as a
method of settling disputes but who involuntarily contribute to war by payment
of taxes.
Participants in the one-day seminar came from 12 area congregations and
represented four denominations. The focus of the meeting was on that portion
of the federal income tax which goes to support the military and weapons
production. This group felt that the increasing militarization of our society,
the escalation of the arms race, and production of highly technological
weapons of destruction posed the problem of priorities and stewardship, and
the contradiction of “paying for war while praying for peace.”
Willard Swartley, professor of New Testament at Associated Mennonite Biblical
Seminaries in Elkhart, spoke on “Biblical imperatives,” emphasizing the
Christian’s mandate for responsible use of the earth’s resources. Cliff Kindy
of Goshen then outlined what we pay for war, giving a breakdown of the federal
budget with percentages of expenditures going to current and past military and
war-related items. He computed current military spending as roughly 25 to 30
percent, while a more comprehensive figure, taking into account veterans’
expenses and interest on the war-related portion of the national debt, reaches
as high as 50 percent of the national budget. Kindy also estimated that
members of Mennonite and Church of the Brethren churches in Elkhart County pay
more for war taxes than they contribute to their churches.
A survey of the history of war tax resistance among the historic peace
churches since the Reformation was presented by Leonard Gross, archivist of
the Mennonite Church. Current responses to the problem of war taxes were given
by a number of people. Janet Reedy of Elkhart and Jim Sweigart of Goshen
discussed possible options such as refusal to pay that portion of the income
tax which goes to support war, payment made with an accompanying letter or
protest, or voluntarily limiting income below the level of tax liability.
Following the presentations the group broke up into three workshops for
further discussion. From these emerged a consensus on the need for a
continuing support group such as this. Participants expect to draft a
statement which can be presented to their respective congregations for
consideration.
The seminar was planned by a New Call to Peacemaking Committee made up of
members from six Church of the Brethren and Mennonite Churches in Goshen, with
Virgil Brenneman from The Assembly (Mennonite) serving as chairman.
Bruce Chrisman told a New Call to Peacemaking Workshop of his war tax resistance.
The workshop on national service and voluntary service discussed a proposal by
members of Rainbow Boulevard Mennonite Church, Kansas City,
Kan., regarding a legal tax
alternative which would involve cooperating with a national service plan.
In the workshop on conscription of wealth Bob Hull, secretary for peace and
social concerns of the General Conference Mennonite Church, suggested
alternatives to paying war taxes. Others offered their own suggestions.
Several persons expressed the desire to pay taxes only for nonmilitary
programs, and said they wished there was legal provision for this, such as the
World Peace Tax Fund. McSorley, who has had contacts on Capitol Hill,
responded by saying that until there is a large grass-roots movement of tax
resistance the
WPTF doesn’t
stand a chance.
The latter half of the workshop included sharing by Bruce Chrisman,
Carbondale, Ill., who is
involved in a federal criminal case, one of two in the
U.S. involving tax
resistance. His case is significant because it will provide a precedent either
for or against tax refusal on the basis of conscience and religious
convictions.
In Chrisman received draft counseling from
James Dunn, pastor of the Champaign-Urbana
(Ill.) Mennonite Church. He
made a covenant with God to only pay taxes for humanitarian purposes. Since
that time he has paid no federal income taxes.
It wasn’t until this year, however, that the government prosecuted him,
charging that he willfully failed to disclose his gross income in
. “Willful” is the key term, because Chrisman
claims he conscientiously chose not to disclose his income. He feels the
government has purposely waited to build its case.
In the conclusion to his talk Chrisman said that when he first appeared in
court on
this year he was “scared to death.” “Today,” he said, “I have no fear in me.
God has given me an inner peace. I know I’m doing what He wants me to do.”
The Smoketown Consultation
The Gospel Herald covered
“the Smoketown Consultation”
of , in which conservative
Mennonites organized against innovations like war tax resistance. It noted that
“All 25 persons invited were white males,” but also reproduced the statement
that came out of the conference.
Several letters to the editor reacted to this news:
“I… wondered about the inclusion of the specific war tax issue. Were
individuals who sincerely hold to an alternate point of view asked to take
part in the discussion? Again, I am not questioning the conclusions of the
group so much as to ask whether any ‘by-invitation-only’ meeting can speak
for the church with any more integrity than can existing boards and
commissions of the church.”
“It is very easy to pick a Scripture verse to use to prove or disprove
almost anything. The group at one point (Statement #2) speaks about total
commitment to Jesus Christ but then uses quotations from the Apostle Paul
(Statement #5) to validify payment of all taxes. If Jesus Christ is
central, let’s use His example and specific words to guide us! I can
imagine the Pentagon people jumping for joy upon hearing such a statement
about taxes. I’m sure they are glad for this voluntary assurance (from
‘peace church’ members) that money will continue to roll in so that the
military can increase its nuclear arsenal. Because of the apparent
unquestioning payment of taxes by German Christians, Hitler was able to
annihilate millions of persons. We
(U.S.) will be
able to do it with nuclear weapons Neat, eh?”
“At Smoketown Ⅱ, when we assume the sisters of the church will take the
opportunity to share their thoughts, we suggest that a fuller range of
statements be reported. Issues, the unavoidable places where doctrine
meets practical decisions, should be identified and addressed to give
definition to the positive reaffirmation of the authority of Scripture and
a renewed zeal for personal and church evangelism. And, for the grass
roots, a minority report on the nonpayment of war taxes could be
included.”
Verburg didn’t think much of all this talk about war taxes, saying that
the peace witness was about more than opposition to military, so the war
tax emphasis was sign of an imbalance. “We are not the flower children of
the sixties. We are Jesus people and there is a big difference.”
[Gordon] Zook [executive secretary of the Board of Congregational Ministries]
noted the difference between the Smoketown statement “that we should pay all
taxes” and the statement on peacemaking passed by the General Assembly at
Waterloo. The Waterloo statement recognizes the withholding of war taxes as a
valid option. Which statement represents the church? he asked.
Peace Tax Fund Legislation
The edition included an
article by Dan Slabaugh laying out the case for the World Peace Tax Fund bill.
An editor’s note in that issue mentioned that “The
U.S. copies of the
issue of the
Gospel Herald carried a center insert with cards that
may be used by readers to encourage
U.S. lawmakers to
support the World Peace Tax Fund. The following article provides the author’s
rationale for support of the Fund legislation. Readers who care to are
encouraged to make use of these cards or to write their own leaders on its
behalf.”
Any collection of taxes for military purposes has created problems of
conscience for those committed to the peaceful resolution of conflict. Many
members of the “historic peace churches” have viewed war taxes as a denial of
religious freedom since such payments forced them to engage in personal sin.
The question has been put this way: “How can I, as a follower of the Prince of
Peace, willingly provide the government with money that’s needed to pay for
war?”
The most recent war tax in the United States, aside from the income tax, has
been the federal telephone tax. This levy was initiated originally to support
the Vietnam War, but is still continuing for a few more years. Many people
have refused to pay this tax to the federal government. Instead, they have
been sending the equivalent amount to the [“]Special Fund for Tax Resisters”
of Mennonite Central Committee’s Peace Section, or to similar designated
organizations.
To a smaller percentage of individuals the payment of the federal income tax
(approximately 50 percent of which they know goes to support wars and military
activity) also has been considered a matter of personal sin. They therefore
have informed the government that in good conscience they cannot voluntarily
pay that portion of their tax. In some cases persons have deposited the amount
in a local bank where the Internal Revenue Service comes and “steals” it from
them. By so doing these persons are freeing themselves of personal
responsibility for the money’s eventual use and also providing a visible
protest against the evil.
To most of these law-abiding, peace-loving people continual confrontation with
their own government has been an unhappy prospect. So nearly a decade ago a
small group of Christians at Ann Arbor, Michigan — with considerable faith in
the American legislative process — came to believe that it might be possible
to draft a bill and eventually convince the federal government to legalize
“peace” for those citizens so inclined.
A faculty member and a few graduate students at the University of Michigan’s
Law School drafted such a proposal. It provides, for the individual requesting
it, a setting aside of that percentage of the federal income tax which the
U.S. Attorney
General would determine to be earmarked for military purposes. This amount
would then be placed in a trust fund to be administered by a board of trustees
to fund peaceful activities, as approved by the
U.S. Congress.
This legislation, which has become known as the World Peace Tax Fund bill, was
introduced into the
U.S. House of
Representatives by Ronald Dellums of California in
. In the
National Council for a
WPTF was
invited to present its case in the House Ways and Means Committee. The bill
was introduced into the Senate in by Senator
Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon. In the last Congress it had 25 sponsors in the
House of Representatives and the three in the Senate (The legislation was not
enacted and so must be reintroduced to be considered by the present Congress.)
The World Peace Tax Fund bill is often misunderstood. It does not call for any
tax relief or special favors benefiting anyone financially. The bill, if
passed, probably will not affect the
U.S. government’s
military activities. In all likelihood it will not cut the military budget, or
of itself, stop wars. And it will not diminish the need to continue peace
teaching or peace activities.
But it will allow a citizen to legally refrain from contributing to the cost
of war and violence. It will provide a fund to finance peace programs and
support efforts to eliminate the causes of violent conflict.
The biggest obstacle to getting this bill passed in the
U.S. Congress is
the large number of people who say they are committed to peace, but who
seemingly feel no responsibility regarding the government’s use of their tax
money. As a result, legislators tell us that they can’t see the payment of war
taxes as much of a problem because they get very few letters expressing
concern about the matter.
To a large degree, Congress is “problem-oriented.” An alert young Congressman
told us personally that “this bill probably will not be passed until enough of
you refuse to pay war taxes — even if it means going to jail. In other words,”
he was saying, “create a problem that Congress must deal with.”
I am convinced that the conscientious objector provision of the Selective
Service act of never would have been
included had it not been for the “problem” created by
C.O.’s who
refused induction during World War Ⅰ. As the
U.S. was mobilizing
for World War Ⅱ the government did not want another “problem” on its hands, so
it agreed to make provisions for the C.O.’s — not
necessarily out of concern for religious liberty, but in order to keep the
boat from rocking too much.
We should remember that God’s prophets and even His own Son were seen as
“problems” in terms of natural human tendencies toward power, selfishness and
greed. Few of us like to “cause problems” for others. We like to work at
solving them — and be successful in our efforts. But in matters of conscience,
we haven’t been called to be successful, we have been called to be faithful.
“Conscience and War Taxes” is the title of a slide set produced by the
National Council for a World Peace Tax Fund. A resources packet accompanies
the 78 color slides, 20-minute cassette. “Conscience and War Taxes” can be
obtained from MBCM Audiovisuals…
The first issue the class tackled was the payment of war taxes. In
U.S.
Rep. Edward Mezvinsky
was invited to church for Sunday lunch and a discussion of the war tax issue.
“He sidestepped every issue,” said Jim Yoder. Mezvinsky promised to vote for
the World Peace Tax Fund Act if it ever made it to the floor of the House, but
declined to help the bill out of committee.
“He spent most of his time expounding upon his efforts to kill the
B-1 bomber,” recalled Nyle.
When the Fourth of July rolled around that Bicentennial year, the class
sponsored an alternate celebration for the church. Guy Hershberger was asked
to chair the meeting. He interviewed some of the local
“veterans” — conscientious objectors Henry Miller, Henry Brenneman, and Sol
Ropp — who had been badly mistreated by the
U.S. Army during
World War Ⅱ. He also discussed the war tax issue.
Later in the year the class presented a proposal to the congregation, asking
the church to lend moral support to people who did not pay the portion of
their taxes going for war. After initial misunderstandings and further
discussion, the congregation approved the proposal.
Nyle [Kauffman] and Jim were the only class members making enough to have to
worry about paying any taxes at all in . Both
withheld 33 percent of their estimated tax and sent a check for the amount to
Mennonite Central Committee.
This is the twenty-first in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
In there was a lot of discussion of war tax
resistance, and a lot of individual Mennonite war tax refusal and redirection,
but Mennonite Church institutions seemed more reluctant than their General
Conference to take corporate stands supporting their war tax refusing
employees.
The issue brought an update
in the case of a Mennonite war tax resister who was fighting his case in court:
Bruce Chrisman of Ava, Ill.,
a General Conference Mennonite who was convicted on
of failure to file an income tax return in ,
was sentenced on
to one year in Mennonite Voluntary Service.
Chrisman is a war-tax resister. He believes conscientious objectors should be
exempt on First Amendment grounds from paying that portion of federal income
tax that supports the military.
Judge J. Waldo Ackerman of the
U.S. District Court
in Springfield,
Ill. ordered the unusual
sentence, giving Mennonite Voluntary Service
(MVS)
staff 30 days to work out a program with Chrisman.
“I’m amazed,” said Chrisman. “I feel very good about the sentence. The
alternative service is probably the first sentence of its kind for a tax case.
I think it reflects the testimony in the trial and its influence on the
judge.” Chrisman could have been sentenced to one year in prison and a $10,000
fine.
Chrisman and his wife, Mary Anne, and two-year-old daughter, Venessa, live on
a small farm near Ava. Plans are for them to join
MVS
as a family. They will remain in their home community and engage in prison
ministries and peace education work along with their farming. Charles Neufeld,
regional
MVS
administrator, is working with the Chrismans and local support committee
headed by Ted Braun, pastor of United Church of Christ in Carbondale,
Ill., to give guidance to
this ministry.
At the trial Bob Hull, Jim Dunn, and
Peter Ediger joined with Chrisman in testifying to Christian conviction
against warfare, including payment of taxes for support of war. When the
prosecution cross-examined Chrisman from the Bible they also called Ediger as
a trial witness. Ediger, who is director of Mennonite Voluntary Service,
articulated Mennonite pacifist beliefs and how the tax code infringes on the
First Amendment rights to religious pacifists.
Dunn, who is pastor of the First Mennonite Church in Champaign-Urbana
(Ill.), was a character
witness. Hull, secretary for peace and social concerns of the General
Conference Mennonite Church, and Ediger testified about Mennonite beliefs
during the earlier pretrial hearing.
An appeal of the case has been filed by Chrisman’s attorney, Jeffrey Weiss,
not to contest the sentence, but to test the court’s rulings denying relevance
of First Amendment rights in this case. Persons interested in helping with
court costs may contact the General Conference Mennonite Church, Commission on
Home Ministries…
The Chrismans are ready to share their faith and concerns for peacemaking in
their community and beyond. Persons or churches interested may write them at
Route 2, Ava, IL 62907.
A prayer for believers who voluntarily pay war taxes: “Father, forgive them,
even though they know very well what they are doing.” ―from Daniel Slabaugh, a
conscientious objector to voluntary payment of war taxes, pastor of the Ann
Arbor (Mich.) Mennonite
Church.
Elam Lantz, currently residing in Washington, spoke on “First Amendment
Religious Freedom.” He spoke at some length on the “free exercise” phrase as
some have tried to apply it to war-tax resistance.
[T]he board responded to an inquiry from James Longacre, Mennonite Church
representative on
MCC
Peace Section
(U.S.). Longacre
sought counsel on whether Peace Section should approve a proposal for advocacy
of “war tax” resistance. The Board acknowledged that there is a lack of
consensus on the subject in the church and counseled caution, urging
sensitivity toward those who hold to different practices.
In a controversial decision, the bishop board reported that “after careful
consideration… we do not support promoting participation in a war tax
resistance campaign.”
Calling on congregations to stand with draft-age young people in a costly
peace witness, meeting participants urged “a stronger stand” in resistance to
the payment of taxes for military purposes and called for “increased
participation in existing and expanded service programs by young and old
alike.”
An commentary by Michael Shank
and Richard Kremer pushed Mennonites to take a stand with their taxes, if only
a small, symbolic one:
During the past year, the Mennonite congregation of Boston has felt a growing
concern about the enormous military expenditures of our government and about
our silence as a church. Events of the past months — Americans increasing
demands for military intervention to “solve” the stalemate in Iran, the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan, and President Carter’s requests for sharply increased
military spending, for opening new military bases near the Middle East, for
restoring draft registration — have made us realize, yet again, how close a
nation ostensibly “at peace” can be to war.
, we spent several meetings
discussing militarism and war taxes so that our congregational representative
could speak for us at the General Conference Mennonite Church consultation on
war taxes held in . Since that
time we have been grappling with our responses to the war tax issue, both as
individuals and as a congregation.
Why do we think this issue is so important? First we assume that as Mennonites
our commitment to reconciliation and our refusal to participate in war-related
activities remain fundamental to our understanding of the gospel. In this
respect, we remain in continuity with the conscientious objection to war
voiced by our predecessors, particularly during World War Ⅰ and the wars which
followed.
Although this commitment has not changed in any fundamental way, the world
situation in which we find ourselves is significantly different from that of
our parents and grandparents. Until very recently, manpower appeared to be the
crucial ingredient for war. Since we could not in good conscience participate
in war, we objected to the government’s demands for our military service. This
stance led to the imprisonment of Mennonites and other conscientious objectors
during World War Ⅰ, and later to alternative service legislation during World
War Ⅱ.
During , however, the
character of warfare has changed in drastic ways. The threats to human life
and peace presented by large armies, unfortunately, have been completely
dwarfed by nuclear weapons, which our country did not hesitate to use on an
earlier occasion. These weapons of large-scale and indiscriminate death
presently exist in quantities sufficient to destroy all human life many times
over, and the stockpiles continue to grow.
Under such circumstances, the military branches of our government no longer
need our bodies as badly as they need our money and our silence. Every year
they need new funds:
to research, develop, and test more accurate and efficient means of
carrying bombs to their targets;
to produce, deploy, and maintain these weapons;
to train technicians to use them; and
to attract, recruit, and pay people who presently “volunteer”
for the armed forces.
All of these activities take place without our direct participation (unless,
of course, the draft is cranked up again); none of them could take place
without money. These expenditures are authorized by our representatives and
paid for by the taxes we contribute.
In contrast to the Roman Christians to whom Paul wrote, we have alternatives
beyond silent submission or open revolt. Our government expects its citizens
to voice their concerns. Our constitution and laws have provided channels for
doing so. These include, among others, communications to representatives, and
provisions for challenging bad laws by testing their validity
(e.g., by refusing to comply so that a higher
court will need to examine the law). Under such circumstances, our government
and representatives can be expected to interpret our silence, both as
individuals and as a church, in only two ways: either we approve of their
policies, or we do not care.
Many in our congregation are convinced that the biblical teachings and
arguments which led Mennonites to the conscientious objector position in World
War Ⅰ (when this position was not legal) and in World War Ⅱ (when it was) lead
us also to object to the use of our tax dollars for weapons of mass
destruction. The quiet payment of war taxes today is as inconsistent with the
spirit of Jesus life and teachings as the act of joining the army was earlier
(and indeed still is). The same concern for obedience today demands a response
suited to the new circumstances into which military developments have placed
us.
There is yet another reason why we must voice our concerns. Many of us would
undoubtedly make use of the World Peace Tax Fund, if such an option were
presently open to us. But how will we honestly be able to call ourselves
conscientious objectors to war taxes in the future (if and when such a
possibility becomes legal) if we raise no objections whatsoever now? What
grounds will the government have for believing our sincerity if it has no
record of our past objections either as a church or as individuals?
, a number of our members took the
symbolic step of withholding $10 from their income tax payments and forwarding
this amount to the Mennonite Central Committee. Others included letters with
their tax returns protesting use of their tax monies for military purposes. We
plan to reconsider our tax-paying responsibilities as
approaches once again. We
encourage other Mennonite congregations to join with us in seeking to build
peaceful relations among all peoples and nations and to denounce the tendency
to solve world problems solely through military might.
D.R. Yoder wrote a
letter to the editor
in response, rejecting war tax resistance for lack of scriptural support.
Seminar participants elected workshops, Saturday afternoon on organizing
public peace witness, war tax alternatives, the draft and conscientious
objectors, and the arms race and the economy.
The Mennonite brotherhood stands firmly on the position that Christians should
not serve in the military. The basic reason for this position is that the
military is a force and a power of destruction, and it cannot be brought
together with the role of a servant as we understand the call to commitment in
the New Testament. To avoid military service in various countries and
centuries Mennonites have used different methods. Substitutes have been hired,
men have refused to serve and have been imprisoned and killed. Since the
1940s, Mennonites have been excused from serving and have been allowed to do
alternative service.
The methods of fighting wars and being a power have changed greatly since the
1600s. World War Ⅰ and most of World War Ⅱ were fought with the same methods
as for thousands of years, that method being vast numbers of men and hand
weapons.
World Wars Ⅰ and Ⅱ also brought new ideas and methods to the “act of
war”: the fighter plane and the bomber, that now destroys women, children, and
the old who are not in the military through the bombing of cities; tanks and
rockets and (the thing that ended the war with Japan) the atomic bomb, not by
destroying or defeating the army, but by destroying two cities and killing old
people, women, and children. War and power are not measured today so much by
the number of men carrying a rifle but by the number of atomic bombs, tanks,
bombers, jet fighters, aircraft carriers, submarines, other ocean vessels, and
even computers.
War is fought today not so much with men but with machines. I believe that
this change in war methods also calls for a change in the way we as Christians
respond. We need to refuse to serve, as we have done in the past, but we also
need to refuse to support the war machine with our material resources.
President Carter has recently asked for a large increase in military spending.
Since the peak of the Vietnam War in , the
amount spent on military in the
U.S. has gone from
$77.3 billion to the $142.0 billion projected for
. What is or should be our response as
followers of the Prince of Peace? Do we continue to pay our taxes without
speaking out against or doing something about the insanity of war and the
terrible waste of money and natural resources, to say nothing of the potential
for destruction? What should be a Christian response to the enormous spending
for the military? I will not argue with the right of the state to determine
its own course, but I believe that we as Christians have a responsibility to
decide whether we participate with the state in destructive goals.
My wife and I have attempted since the early 1970s to avoid supporting the war
machine by not paying income taxes. We have not withheld payment from the
government but have used another method that has been taught in our
fellowship. I must say, we have not been 100 percent successful with our
method. In the last six years we have paid small amounts of income tax of
under $100 for two or three years, one year we paid a larger sum and the other
years we paid nothing.
This method is adaptable to just about everyone and is very legal. We
have attempted to reduce our income below taxable levels by giving it to the
work of the church and deducting it from our income taxes as an itemized gift.
This method has two very positive goals; the first, it gives needed money to
the mission and service programs of the Mennonite Church and, second, it
speaks out against our consumeristic society because we have to learn to get
by on less than normal in the line of material possessions, but usually still
more than we actually need.
The second goal is difficult to fulfill. We find out continually how our
society has an influence on our lives. Simple living is not easy to
accomplish, but by reducing our incomes we can speak out forcefully against
the excess consumption and the senseless military spending. I believe that our
money is an extension of ourselves, that is, when we give money to
MCC
or a mission in the Mennonite Church we are in reality there working, where
that money is being used. In the same way when we give money to the government
for taxes and the government buys and builds weapons of destruction, we are
there too, every bit as much as on the mission field. Can you imagine the
force for good and the amount of work that could be done in the world today if
the people in our brotherhood would reduce their income in an attempt to defer
support of war through giving to our church missions and relief organizations?
The decision is yours and mine whether we want to further the kingdom of God
or give our money to the building of a war machine. Let us seek the Lord and
seek broader counsel in our brotherhood for the answer on how to be faithful
today.
A letter to the editor,
from Jon Byler () also promoted
the simple living technique:
Why, when the Lord Jesus spoke so clearly about the dangers of wealth, and
when we have so many people seeking ways to avoid supporting the military
machine, has this been overlooked? If we are willing to reduce our standard of
living to help our brothers, we can speak positively against the consumer
waste, materialism, and disposable society; we can similarly be in complete
obedience to all the laws, and still refuse to support a military machine that
we all believe is wrong. I realize this is easier for myself, being young (25)
and single, but I am happy to say that I have never paid a single
cent that was used to bomb innocent children or to burn their homes, or to
support political torture by our “allies.”
The payment of taxes for military purposes is a growing source of concern for
more and more people. In response to the increasing awareness of the function
of taxation in the world arms race. Peace Section
(U.S.) is
sponsoring an educational effort to aid in the search for a biblical response.
As part of that effort, Paul and Loretta Leatherman were interviewed by Ron
Flickinger for Peace Section. Excerpts from that interview are presented in
the hope that the Leathermans’ convictions and experiences will provide useful
information to those who are considering their own action in the future. Paul
and Loretta began resisting war taxes when they returned from an
MCC
term in Vietnam in . Paul is presently
employed by
MCC
as director of the Self-Help program and Loretta is teaching in the Ephrata
public school system. Their home is in Akron,
Pa.
Question:
What led you to begin resisting war taxes? Did your
experience in Vietnam influence your decision to do so?
Loretta:
We saw the war effort change from manpower to money
power. Men aren’t used as much anymore and, instead, our money was being used
to do intensive bombing. We would not go to war ourselves and so we thought we
should resist having our money being sent to war also.
Paul:
I think serving in Vietnam radicalized us in that sense.
About every night we were there, we went to sleep with the sound of bombing
and we saw bombs exploding from our house. We lived in the middle of the war
and saw what it did to children and families. You recognize that it’s done
through your taxes and you begin to take a pretty serious look at it.
Question:
Do you also see consequences in the future if people do
not start resisting the use of their money in this way?
Paul:
Well, this is supposedly peacetime but I see the military
budget increasing in real dollars. It goes up in addition to inflation while
many other government programs are being trimmed. It doesn’t make much sense
to keep building up and building up the military machinery which is capable of
destroying the world. I think history shows that whatever military equipment
is made is always used, so I think sometime there is going to be a big nuclear
war.
Loretta:
There isn’t much sense in being able to destroy oneself
so many times. It’s a terrible waste.
Question:
Many people who are resisting war taxes have voiced
specific concerns for their families, their children, their grandchildren. I’m
sure this has a part in your thinking, too.
Paul:
Well, I think it does. I don’t know that we’ve specifically
said we’re going to resist taxes because of our own children, but more simply
for the world community. Our children are certainly a part of that.
Question:
Do you feel as Christians that you have something to say
to government? Many people don’t think they are responsible for what the
government does with their money once their taxes are paid.
Paul:
I’m pretty convinced that we have to say something. If
Christians don’t, who will? Where does the conscience come from? How is man
going to see the sin and evil of his ways unless someone speaks up to it? As
we would understand the way of Christ and what He has taught us, we need to be
prophetic in terms of what that means in the world. We can’t be Christians and
be quiet about it. If we are going to be citizens of another kingdom, then we
have to speak out about what it means and live it out as well.
Question:
What kind of reactions do you get from friends and
acquaintances?
Paul:
I think we get a strong resistance from people in the church
who are thoroughly convinced that we must pay all of our taxes and that any
tax resistance is going directly against biblical teaching. Mark 12:17 says,
“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s…” and those who don’t pay all
of the taxes Caesar asks for are specifically disobeying the teachings of the
Bible. I don’t know all of their motives behind that sort of conviction, but I
think there is a stronger resistance there than any place. Now, there are also
outside the church the superpatriotic people who believe that anything that
tends to speak against the structure of the
U.S. military is
bad. But there are also a lot of people who are sort of questioning the
direction of things in the world today. They are open to thinking about ideas
and, while they may not agree with all of it, at least they see some of the
reasoning behind it all.
Question:
How do you respond to people who don’t agree with
you?
Paul:
That depends very much on who it is. I don’t think there is
much point in arguing, but if people want to discuss it in a real way, then I
think we can. It’s not a point one can win by arguing and I think we could
probably do more harm than good by doing so. We’re not out waving the flag of
tax resistance every place we go, not at all. Simply when the opportunity
presents itself, we will discuss it. I think we have felt the importance in
doing this as much within our own church as any other place. It’s within our
own church fellowship that we need to help our brothers and sisters understand
what our tax dollars are doing around the world, such as we saw happen in
Vietnam. We want to try to help sharpen consciences on this issue.
Loretta:
You have to think of the saying, “Those who do not stand
up for the powerless are acting against them.”
Paul:
The thing that we’ve been doing on taxes has given us the
chance on numerous occasions to at least talk about it, share it in a way that
has helped us as people in the church understand what it means to live in a
complicated world.
Question:
What has been the
IRS
reaction? Tell us about some of your contacts with
IRS
agents.
Paul:
One of the first years we resisted paying war taxes, we
actually owed a little bit of money at the end of the year. We claimed a war
tax credit and asked for a refund. The
IRS
turned it down and called us in to audit the credit and also our
contributions, which were somewhat above the norm. The inspector took 25
minutes to audit our contributions and concluded that they were exactly right
to the penny. He said that was okay but that he simply could not allow the war
tax credit and there was no use in talking about it.
“Now look,” I said, “you asked us to come in here for an audit and we had to
leave our jobs to come. You’ve taken 25 minutes of my time auditing something
which I knew all along was correct and I’m equally convinced that I’m entitled
to the war tax credit. I’d like at least 25 minutes of your time to discuss
it.” He said okay, let’s talk. We discussed the pros and cons of why we were
opposed to paying war taxes, why we thought it was wrong. He listened and sort
of entered into the discussion and then at the end of 25 minutes, I said,
“Well, you’ve given me 25 minutes now, but there are still many more things we
could talk about. Would you be interested in reading a little more about this?
He said he would, so I gave him Kaufman’s What Belongs to Caesar? and a few other things.
Then I said, “After you have had a chance to read these, why don’t you come over for dinner next Wednesday and we can talk about it some more.”
He accepted the invitation. We weren’t sure if he would come but he showed up
and we had a very good discussion with him for about three hours. He was very
much against the Vietnam war but he thought that our tax resistance was
completely useless and that there was no way to succeed.
One year, we took our case all the way to court. Loretta didn’t take off from
teaching but I took our case all the way through the appeals process. We were
turned down at each place and were finally scheduled to go to the tax court in
Washington,
D.C. At that
point, I decided to take it out of that court and asked to have it tried in
the small tax court in Harrisburg,
Pa. The decision in the
small tax court was not precedent setting nor could it be appealed. If I had
kept the case in the tax court in Washington,
D.C., I
would have been able to appeal that decision all the way to the Supreme Court.
I decided not to do that because the preparation for the case would have had
to be much more careful in order to be heard and not simply dismissed on a
technicality. I wrote my own briefs and presented the case myself. It was
about three to four months before we got the judge’s opinion turning it
down.
Question:
Have you ever felt that you have risked a prison
sentence by refusing to pay?
Paul:
Well, that’s another story I can tell. After the court
trial, an
IRS
agent came to see me at the office. The receptionist called me and told me
there was someone out there to see me but I didn’t recognize his name. Only
when I got out there and he showed me his credentials did I realize who he
was. That was when we had the open office at
MCC
so rather than taking him into a conference room, I brought him in beside my
desk. I wanted to be on my own turf when he questioned me.
He asked me about the bill and I said, “Yes,
IRS
thinks I owe that amount and the judge thinks I owe it. I acknowledge that
from the
IRS
perspective it is a legitimate bill but I don’t have any intention of paying
it.”
He replied that he was here to collect the bill and he didn’t expect to leave
until I paid it.
“Well,” I said, “I already told you that I don’t expect to pay it and since
I’m not expecting to pay it, I think you ought to put me in jail. My wife has
been expecting that you might come around sometime and she said that if I go
to jail, she’d like to know where I’m going so she could write to me. I would
also like to know how soon it would be so that I can make arrangements for
somebody to take my place at this desk.” He looked at me and said he had never
heard anybody talk like that before. He went up to the bank the next day and
issued an order to draw the money out of my bank account.
I must admit that even when I was talking to him I didn’t think I was risking
a jail sentence. I didn’t think the
IRS
would put anyone in jail because they have other ways to collect the money. It
is too hazardous for them to take someone out of the
MCC
office and put them in jail. I don’t think they can risk that.
Question:
What has been your experience with the
IRS
attaching your bank account?
Paul:
Usually they have just issued an order for the money and the
bank notified us that the money was being withdrawn. One time, though, we
didn’t have enough money in the account to cover the bill, so the
IRS
attached the account and nothing could be paid out of it until they got their
money. It took about a month before we got our account cleared again.
Loretta:
Every time we wanted to cash a check they would have to
call Lancaster to find out if the account was clear. It was embarrassing. I
wanted to run in quick to withdraw some cash and it would take all of 45
minutes before I found out I couldn’t get any.
Paul:
Our banking was really skewed. The checks we issued that had
not been cashed all bounced because the
IRS had
withdrawn all the money. The bank stamped on the cheeks that the account had
been attached by the
IRS. One
of the checks we had written was a contribution to the World Peace Tax Fund.
When it bounced we got a note from the
WPTF office
saying, "Good work, brother. Keep it up. We don’t mind losing this kind.” That
was sort of interesting but it was a very marked inconvenience for us. That
was one of the worst experiences we have had in tax resistance.
Loretta:
That was when the people in the bank knew what was going
on.
Paul:
Yes, one of the brothers in the bank is from the Mennonite
Church. The first time my account was attached, he took the money out and I
just got the notice in the mail. I scolded him for that and told him that he
should at least let me know before he took the money out. The next time it
happened, he called me saying he had a notice to attach my account and asked
me to write a check to the
IRS so
he wouldn’t have to attach the account. I said, “No way, brother. Thanks for
calling me, but now it s on your conscience. If you think you can be a tax
collector, then go ahead and do it.” I was kind of mean to him. I won’t think
less of him if he pays the
IRS, but
as least he has to think through what he is doing.
Question:
What keeps you working at this in spite of the
inconveniences and the people that disagree with you?
Paul:
I thing we’re getting a little tired. That’s our mood
actually now, that we re getting a little tired.
Loretta:
It’s kind of a lonely struggle.
Paul:
It’s a question of how much you really ought to share what
you are doing, whether it’s a real sharing of where you are or whether you are
bragging about what you are doing. In the final analysis, when the time comes
to fill out your
IRS
form, you’re not doing it in a support group and the consequences are going to
be yours.
Question:
What suggestions do you have for someone who is thinking
about resisting war taxes?
Paul:
Do it. The first time we did this it was a very difficult,
emotional experience.
Loretta:
And even when the telephone rang. I was just terribly
worried about what it might be.
Paul:
Well, I have a strong feeling that we ought to pay what
is due. I think it’s correct that we ought to render unto Caesar or anybody
else what is their due. We also give unto God what is due and I think that is
the important thing. When these two come in conflict, then my moral, ethical
training is not to pay Caesar. But not to pay becomes a very difficult
struggle whether it’s 34¢ or $34 or $340. The one was about as difficult as
the other when we started, and starting this is not easy. But in starting, you
make a kind of commitment that does something to you.
The other thing is the time and energy to do it. You know it’s easier to do
the status quo thing. Resistance takes a lot more energy and time.
A letter to the editor in response
() from Allen King noted “There
are a number of people in our community who believe the same way but do not
know how to go about it.”
In an
International Mennonite Peace Committee meeting
was held, which allowed for an update from the war tax resisters of Japan,
though this is all that Gospel Herald readers learned
about it:
Michio Ohno of Asia, remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki, demonstrates his
concern about the destruction of nuclear war by his resistance to payment of
taxes used for military purposes. He is president of the Tokyo (Japan)
Mennonite Conference.
A pair of Mennonites went to court to try to gain legal conscientious objector
to military taxation status:
On , a federal circuit court judge
agreed that Janet and Stan Reedy of Elkhart,
Ind., had a case worth hearing
after they had claimed a conscientious objector deduction on their income tax
report.
Supported by members of their church, the South Side Fellowship of Elkhart,
the Reedys presented testimony in opposition to the motion of the Internal
Revenue Service that the petition for a conscientious objector deduction is
“insufficient, immaterial, and frivolous.”
“As the motion to strike points out,” said Janet Reedy, “there is presently no
provision in the
IRS code
which authorized the deduction we are claiming. That is precisely the problem.
The First Amendment to the (Constitution states, ‘Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof…’ I want to argue that the present
IRS law
violates our rights and the rights of all persons who are conscientiously
opposed to war by requiring us to pay for war even though it is contrary to
our religious beliefs. Thus we are denied a right guaranteed to us by the
First Amendment.”
In support of this argument, Janet told of her conviction that killing is
wrong and that paying the tax for killing is no different than killing. She
asserted that “the law should recognize the right to refuse to pay the taxes
that make it possible for others to kill.” She concluded that “the First
Amendment guarantees us rights to the free exercise of our religious beliefs
which are not being honored by the present
IRS
code.”
Stan followed with corroborative testimony, stating that “the United States
government, through its instruments of the
IRS and
the courts can of course force what appears to be obedience… But some day the
hard, inflexible, and brittle mass of the
IRS code
will shatter upon or be dissolved by the soft voice of conscience.”
As reported by Kathy Rohrer, one of the Fellowship members in attendance, when
Stan was seated the judge asked one question: “Do you come to this court with
a new argument?” Janet answered that they had never before claimed the First
Amendment in their arguments. The judge was so impressed by their evidence
that he denied the
IRS
claim that their petition for a hearing was “irrelevant, immaterial,
impertinent, and frivolous” and granted them a hearing in federal court where
the constitutionality of the case will be judged. No date has been set for
this hearing.
Ken Reed: The Mennonite Church has been a beautiful experience for me, but
it’s only been the past several years that I’ve seriously asked myself:
What is the vision of the Anabaptists? and I’ve concluded it says
something about us being both a community of love and a community of
resistance. We’ve emphasized the love side perhaps — MCC,
Voluntary Service, and giving ourselves in service (the towel and the basin).
Perhaps we haven’t emphasized resistance to evil. Then I look at
Luke 4,
where Jesus says: “This is what my mission is all about in coming to the
world” — He talks about a mission of love and a mission of resistance, a
mission of identifying with people and also a mission of saying “no” to the
evil that was around Him. I take His life as a model for my own.
, I was thinking
about taxes and where my tax dollars go. I was looking through a book on
Hiroshima which was produced by a committee of Japanese journalists and it
just struck me that my money is paying for future Hiroshimas. At that moment,
I made a commitment to myself, “I don’t want to be part of that.”
The General Conference Mennonite Church will “initiate a judicial action
seeking exemption from withholding taxes from the income of its employees” and
take its case to the
U.S. Supreme Court
if necessary. It is planned to base the case on the First Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution,
which embodies the separation of church and state. The action was approved by
delegates to the church’s triennial sessions at Estes Park,
Colo., held
.
Duane Heffelbower, a Mennonite attorney from Reedley,
Calif., and member of the
conference’s task force on tax withholding, said that the suit would be aimed
at seeking an injunction against the Internal Revenue Service, which presently
requires the church’s central offices to withhold the income taxes of its
employees. “We hope to move the suit to the district court level within a
year,” he said.
The Estes Park resolution stated further that all General Conference churches
in the U.S. and
Canada support the Task Force on Taxes through special offerings or budget
allocations and that
U.S.
congregations support efforts for the passage of the World Peace Tax Fund.
This proposed fund would allow those who object to paying taxes in support of
military causes to channel their taxes toward peaceful and humanitarian
projects. The church hopes to find some support for its tax collection test
case among its fellow historic peace churches; namely, the Church of the
Brethren, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Mennonite
Church.
The newly adopted resolution grew out of a motion passed at a special
conference session in Minneapolis,
Minn., in
which asked the General Board of the
conference “to engage in a serious and vigorous search to use all legal,
legislative, and administrative avenues for achieving a conscientious objector
exemption from the legal requirement that the conference withhold income taxes
from the wages of its employees.” Should the GCMC
be successful in gaining the injunction against forced tax collection, the
conference’s employees would receive their wages in full and then follow their
individual consciences in deciding whether to pay or not pay war taxes.
A pair of commentaries from Peter Farrar ( and )
urged Mennonites to “Refuse war taxes! Refuse registration!” without waiting
for the government to grant them special conscientious objector status. Farrar
wrote of the traditional Mennonite “nonresistance” position: “We may choose not
to resist aggression against our persons. We cannot countenance being the means
of aggression against others.”
Pax Christi continued to highlight how taxpaying made citizens complicit in the
arms race, and continued also to encourage war tax resistance as a response
():
A Catholic peace group has called on the
U.S.
bishops to reinstate meatless Fridays as “a penance for and protest against
the arms race.” The statement, issued by Pax Christi
U.S.A.,
at a two-day meeting in Maryknoll,
N.Y., also calls for the
establishment of a National Catholic Peace Week to promote disarmament, and
urges American Catholics to “refrain from the manufacture or use of nuclear
weapons” and to “support those people who refuse to pay for the war machine
with their taxes.” Pax Christi
U.S.A.,
is a branch of the international movement founded in France at the end of
World War Ⅱ. The American unit was begun in .
Spurred by the return of draft registration, a number of Christian groups
have increased their continuing efforts to counter what they see as a growing
tide of militarism in the United States.
Some members of the Society of Friends, disregarding possible penalties of
fines and imprisonment, have advised young men to refuse to register with the
Selective Service System when they come of age. The Church of the Brethren has
affirmed “open, nonevasive withholding of war taxes as a legitimate witness to
our conscientious intention to follow the call of discipleship to Jesus
Christ.”
Going one step further, the General Conference Mennonite Church, meeting at
Estes Park, Colo., in
, committed itself to go to the Supreme
Court, if necessary, to secure release from its current obligation to collect
from its employees income taxes used in large part to support military
programs.
All three bodies work together in the New Call to Peacemaking. This coalition
has invited 400 delegates to a national conference in Green Lake,
Wis.,
,
to devise additional ways for its members to reply to conscription, war taxes,
and what they see as the growing hazards of so-called military security.
Approximately 300 Mennonites, Brethren, and Friends from across the
U.S. have called on
their meetings and congregations to intensify efforts in the search for
alternatives to militarism, conscription, and the payment of war taxes.
The conference’s eight-page findings report was written and revised by a
committee which attempted to integrate the minutes of 27 discussion groups
which met regularly throughout the weekend. The final statement dealt with the
tasks of envisioning peace, nurturing peacemakers, countering militarism,
responding to the conscription of youth and taxes for war, and witnessing to
peace.
With respect to the issue of payment of taxes used for war purposes, the New
Call restated its commitment to urge
Christian peacemakers to “consider withholding from the Internal Revenue
Service all tax monies which contribute to any war effort.”
The statement of findings recommended the following as alternatives to the
payment of war taxes: (1) active work for the adoption of the World Peace Tax
Fund bill which, if passed by the
U.S. Congress,
would serve as a legal alternative to payment of war taxes just as
conscientious objector status is a legal alternative to military service, and
(2) individuals are urged to consider prayerfully all moral ways of reducing
their tax liabilities, including sizable contributions to tax-exempt
organizations and reduction of personal income.
The concern that New Call not issue a declaration more radical than meetings
and congregations would be willing to hear was raised at several points during
the meeting.
The Mennonite Church general board met in
and cautiously decided to
throw its support behind the General Conference Mennonite Church’s legal
challenge to withholding taxes from objecting employees. This was one of the
earliest examples of corporate support for war tax resistance from a Mennonite
Church institution:
One other action of significance had to do with an invitation from the General
Conference Mennonite Church to join in its effort to “initiate a judicial
action seeking exemption for the General Conference Mennonite Church from
withholding taxes from the income of its employees.”
On the basis of action taken at the last Mennonite Assembly in Waterloo,
Ont., which reads: “We
encourage our congregations and institutions to seek relief from the current
legal requirement of collecting taxes through the withholding of income taxes
of employees, especially those taxes which may be used for war purposes. In
this effort we endorse cooperation with the General Conference Mennonite
Church in the current search for judicial, legislative, and administrative
alternatives to the collection of military related taxes.”
The Board acted to: (1) support the judicial action of the General Conference
Mennonite Church to seek exemption of our institutions from withholding taxes
from the income of employees with the understanding that this implies an
invitation to Mennonite members to join in financial support for this judicial
action and (2) we encourage the MBCM
to the task force on taxes to seek to generate a wide support for the World
Peace Tax Fund throughout our constituency by appropriate General Assembly
action and encouragement.
The Board was careful to clarify that this action does not constitute civil
disobedience but rather attempts to work within the domain of the first
amendment in the
U.S. constitution.
This is the twenty-second in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
was marked by heated debate in the pages of
Gospel Herald about war tax resistance, while
Mennonite Church institutions continued to struggle with whether or how to take
a stand.
The issue reported on
Mennonite war tax redirection:
Mennonite Central Committee
U.S. Peace
Section’s Taxes for Peace Fund experienced a substantial increase in
contributions during 1980. The amount of $10,400 was contributed in
, compared to $6,200 in
.
The Taxes for Peace Fund was established in late
. “Persons whose consciences forbid them to
yield money on request to the government’s death-by-technology militarism are
contributing the military portion of their income tax instead to the
life-supporting work of
MCC
U.S. Peace
Section,” says John K. Stoner, executive secretary of the section.
During , the
U.S. budgeted $138
billion for current military spending. Thirty-two percent of the income tax
paid by every American during contributed to
raising this money. An additional 15 percent went to veterans benefits and the
portion of the national debt related to past wars. Thus, nearly half of the
federal budget, raised almost entirely by individual and corporate income
taxes, is military related.
A recent preliminary census taken by
U.S. Peace Section
found that over 200 Mennonite families and individuals are refusing to pay a
portion of their income taxes and are instead contributing that money to
organizations working for peace.
Withholding a portion of one’s income tax is only one of many ways to witness
against military spending. Some Mennonites are using other methods, such as
reducing income below taxable level, increasing charitable contributions,
refusing to pay the federal telephone tax, and actively supporting the World
Peace Tax Fund.
The Mennonite Board of Congregational Ministries was distributing
a war tax study packet
by this time, according to the issue:
A revised and updated War Tax Packet covering a variety of issues
related to the question of payment of taxes for military purposes is
available. The packet contains articles by Willard Swartley, Marlin Miller,
David Schroeder, Donald Kaufman, John Stoner, and William Durland; the stories
of some persons’ own experiences; several brochures and other reprints; an
issue of God and Caesar newsletter; a list of peace
organizations; and a bibliography. Copies of the War Tax Packet are $2.00 and
may be requested from MBCM… or
MCC…
If the church wants to speak to the peace and justice issues of our day with
credibility, we will need to live out more radically our status as God’s
children. We must really be, in fact, the peacemakers we are called to be.
This goes for the church in all parts of the world, but most importantly, it
is for all of us who are citizens of a nation which insists on being number
one in the world.
After hearing my views on peace, a student leader in Spain asked me what I
intended to do about paying taxes to support the armament race. I personally
do not see how Christians can proclaim the gospel of peace with integrity
while intentionally supporting America’s desire to be the number one military
power. This contradiction is compounded when we realize that, in the eyes of
the rest of the world, the United States is the great bastion of evangelical
Christianity.
Things really began to heat up starting in the issue, which featured this commentary (I corrected the
numbering of items 5–7, where the numbers were missing from the original, but
there was some ambiguity so I might have gotten it wrong):
Editor’s Note: The question of war taxes has been a subject of
discussion among Mennonites for years. It does not appear any nearer solution
than before. Should we then cease discussing it? On the contrary, the issue
is so important that we should listen to all who have insights, especially
those who not only speak, but practice their convictions.
This is a blunt article, but I believe it is written with love. Can we
receive it as such? See also the author’s personal note at the end of his
article.
Introduction For years I have struggled with the knowledge that there
are in our Mennonite Church many pastors, educators, theologians, seminary
professors, and writers who have condoned, justified, and rationalized the
payment of war taxes, even placating those whose tender consciences were
bothering them every April 15.
Many times I have argued with the Spirit when confronted with the request that
I witness against this inconsistency. I had good excuses too! Except for a
year of junior college Bible at Eastern Mennonite College, my academic
training has been in engineering and natural science. I can’t read Greek or
Hebrew! How then could a non-seminary, practically illiterate nobody have
any influence? These little dialogues were nearly weekly experiences
(some more detailed), while driving the car, alone in the field, reading
Scripture in sermon preparation, even in silent prayer.
Finally on , while husking
corn, a terrible dread came over me. I stopped the husker right there in the
middle of the field and shouted: “Okay God, if You want me to make a fool of
myself. I’ll do it, I will, I will.” (No one heard me above the noise of the
John Deere, else they might have questioned my sanity.) What a relief and joy
I felt! I think I sang all the hymns I knew by heart the rest of the day!
It was my day off at the hospital, but that evening I was just “too tired” to
“start anything,” and for two weeks I was just “too busy.” Always when I come
home at 12:30 or 1:00 a.m. I fall asleep
the minute I get to bed. Then one night I was wide awake! After an hour of
tossing I finally got up, picked up my Bible and came down to the kitchen,
dropped it on the table rather disgustedly, got a drink of water, and sat
down. The Bible had fallen open and the first words I read were Ezekiel 3:20,
21. That did it for me! (Don’t bother to tell me that is not the
proper way to read the Bible. I already know that; I’m just telling
you what happened to me.)
I thought I should share these experiences with you so that you may know the
motivation for this communication.
Come then, my brothers and sisters, let us reason together concerning the
payment of war taxes!
The United States Internal Revenue Service has stated: “The
IRS
can only collect income taxes because of the voluntary
cooperation of the citizens.” Let no one say that they voluntarily
pay income taxes, because they have no choice. That is not true!
The payment of war taxes is viewed by the government as voluntary
cooperation; the final endorsement of their policies.
If you choose not to pay voluntarily, and make no
other deduction arrangements, then the
IRS
will eventually try to collect in some other way. We have never paid war
taxes and are now giving our entire farm to the church so that we will pay
no income tax. It is costing us something. The burden of proof is upon you
who approve of war taxes because it costs you nothing.
Now I know that many of our people are not in a position to do as we
are doing, so I have with many others been working for seven or eight
years to get the World Peaee Tax Fund passed. The only reason it
has not passed and will not pass is because of lack of concern. United
States senators and representatives have told us many times that except
for the few of you, “There is no evidence that anyone else has any problem
paying war taxes; so why are you bothering us with this bill?”
A highly educated theologian of our denomination said to me, “You can’t
hang a guilt trip on me about war taxes, because we aren’t in a war.”
Doesn’t everyone understand that this is a “Pay now, go later plan”? I
doubt that we will ever again pay for a war during a war. When the atomic
destruction comes it will be no consolation for the victims to remember
that these atomic bombs were paid for by peace-loving Mennonites, not some
terrible heathen Russians! If I should live to see that total destruction
(may God spare me that) I will know that my own brothers and sisters in
the faith have helped make it possible!
It has been pointed out to me that Menno Simons said “we should pay our
taxes” as justification for paying war taxes today. Based on Menno’s life
and teachings, how can anyone even suggest that he would voluntarily pay
our war taxes? I don’t know how it would be possible to dishonor the man
more than to hang that on him, when he was hunted like a criminal for
things a whole lot less contradictory to Jesus’ life and teaching than
voluntarily paying for killing!
In Luke 13:10–17,
the ruler of the synagogue was correct in calling attention to the laws of
the Sabbath. Sabbath observance was a good rule of conduct to obey, but
when it interfered with meeting human need, Jesus demonstrated that
meeting human need took precedence over Sabbath observance.
Now, suppose for the sake of comparison, I allow you to take
Romans 13:1–7
as universally applicable for today’s world. Now you have the same
difference that existed between Jesus and the Pharisees, namely literal
observance of the law versus human good and well being. You are opting for
the former (as the Pharisees did), but Jesus opted for the latter.
Even verses 8, 9, 10 of the same chapter
make it impossible to obey verse 7 if “their dues” are whatever they ask,
because today the payment of war taxes and loving my neighbor as
myself are mutually exclusive!
Certainly Jesus would not view preparation to kill someone as
the proper way to express God’s love.
Some of you say, “The Bible specifically says, ‘Pay your taxes,’ so
that’s what I do and what the government does with it is not my
responsibility.” That was the position of the church during Hitler’s
extermination of the Jews, a position which some of you have criticized
very severely even though to “be faithful” then was much more disastrous
than to be so now. Personal responsibility is such a consistent principle
throughout the Holy Scriptures that I should not need to belabor the
point. Even the worldly legal system has affirmed personal responsibility
regardless of government demands!
If you really behaved in such a simplistic literalism, then you ought
to advocate hatred of parents, because Jesus Himself said that if you
don’t hate your father and mother you can’t be His disciple. Since this is
completely opposite to all His teachings, we know that He said that for
comparison, for emphasis. In the same way, I wished to pay all my taxes
(and always had) until doing so became completely contrary to the life of
Christ!
Some of you argue, “The government will get the money anyway,” or
“Withholding my war taxes won’t stop the arms race.” The exact same
reasoning should put you into a military uniform! I could have reasoned
(as many did) that if I didn’t go into the military, they would just get
someone else to take my place. The day that I was drafted into Civilian
Public Service, I didn’t really notice any lessening of hostilities! I
didn’t take conscientious objector position because I thought it would be
successful (nor is that why I am writing this). The words I want
to hear from my Lord are: “Thou hast been faithful.”
Our citizens are told that all our “defense” (?) budget is to protect
our life and property. (Even if I were in favor of that, I wouldn’t
approve exceeding that by at least 25 times for the personal profit of
special interests.) Some years ago a Mennonite bishop wrote in the
Gospel Herald, “We shouldn’t criticize our
government because they protect our property.” The logical honest
extension of that is: “There is nothing more important than our property.”
What could be more contrary to the essence of the gospel, or the faith of
the Anabaptist martyrs? Didn’t Jesus specifically teach in
Luke 9:24
that if your overriding concern is to save your life, then you
will lose it? Certainly you can already see the beginning of the
financial destruction of our country because of the irresponsible and
insane spending of the military! How pathetic that the Mennonite Church,
because of our worldview, our concept of discipleship, and our persecution
history, could have been in the strength of the Holy Spirit, a powerful
mover toward peace and sanity, but instead has become a farce
instead of a force! History (if there will be any) will say of us
as Jesus said of the Pharisees: “They say, but they do
not.”
Is it any less a sin to kill someone than to ignore human need? If not,
then it seems very appropriate to paraphrase 1 John 3:17
for today. “If any of you have this world’s goods and voluntarily allow
some of it to be used to prepare to kill your brothers and sisters and to
destroy all that God has made, how is it possible for the love
and spirit of the God and Father of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to
dwell in a heart like that?”
What a horrifying possibility that any one might some day tell Jesus,
“Haven’t we held many evangelistic meetings, preached many great sermons,
written wonderful books, healed the sick, spoken in tongues, sang your
praises with great fervor?” and Jesus will have to say to you, “Depart
from me, ye workers of destruction!”
Have you ever considered this question: What effect will my being an
accomplice to the American military have on our worldwide witness to God’s
love and His saving power?
If I were an unbeliever in some Third World country and knew that
“Christian America” is the only country that ever dropped an atomic bomb
on a civilian population, and that “Christian America” supports and arms
42 repressive dictatorships in order to maintain the highest standard of
living on earth for themselves, and that they sell six times more weapons
of violence and destruction than any other country, and that the church
justifies all that, I am sure that I would never want to become a
Christian or have anything to do with such a God!
I fully expect that you will be able to put me down with theological
arguments, or discredit me with a self-righteous application of Scripture
taken out of context to justify and rationalize your position; but, at least,
ask yourself this pragmatic question: If everyone did as I do,
regarding war taxes, what difference would it make? If everyone (or
even all so-called pacifists) would respectfully decline to pay for war, what
difference would that make?
Why are Mennonites unable to take an official position against paying for war?
Is it because we really don’t know what the truth is? Is it because we never
had it so good and we don’t want to risk anything? Is it because we have
become so acculturated, so affluent that we don’t want martyrs anymore. Do we
much prefer millionaires now?
It is my firm conviction that, as far as God is concerned, the day that I pay
war taxes I effectively discredit all that I have ever said, written, or given
for the cause of peace!
The forces of evil do not care what you say, or how you pray as
long as you pay!
A personal note, please: None of us is “off limits” to Satan’s deception! I
therefore remind you of your responsibility to tell me if you believe that I
have been misled in my search for the path of obedience!
Daniel Slabaugh is pastor of Ann Arbor
(Mich.) Mennonite Church. He
is a laboratory supervisor at
St. Joseph Mercy Hospital and
has a farm as a hobby.
I have only one point of disagreement with Mr. Slabaugh; that is the matter
of paying our war taxes voluntarily. I pay taxes, but not voluntarily. I
happily pay the portion of my taxes which go for human services and running
the government (even if some is wasted), but I do not happily pay the
portion that goes for military support. We have a Quaker friend who once
“arranged” not to pay his war taxes and the
IRS
showed their “appreciation” by “arranging” for him to spend several months
in prison. Some years ago, we refused to pay our telephone surcharge tax but
later found that our checking account had been debited for that amount,
which they claimed we owed. We then refused to pay that tax by having our
telephone removed.
I would like to “arrange” not to pay war taxes, but the consequences for
exercising that “freedom” would be too harsh for me at this Hme. I,
therefore, pay my war taxes “under protest,” and may God have mercy.
I thought this was a pretty extraordinary example of tying yourself in
knots to justify continuing to pay war taxes:
Does a Christian have to pay all of his taxes? I don’t believe that he can
be taxed on what he does not have; and I don’t see any compelling reason
why a Christian should have to accumulate things just so as to pay
more taxes. In fact, a Christian who in his work gathers a great amount of
money to himself probably is doing more harm in participating in whatever
is bringing him the money than is being done by whatever portion of the
money is going to taxes.
But, what happens if we withhold part of the taxes on our incomes? If we do
not pay all of the taxes, people who are employed by defense contractors
and defense-related industries as well as military personnel may be thrown
out of work. Unemployment will be a hardship to these people; it will be
suffering caused by the actions of nonresistant Christians.
I should think that the appropriate method to be used by nonresistant
Christians to close the defense plants would be to convert such a large
part of the population to the discipleship of Christ that there would not
be enough people remaining to man the defense plants. The fact that this is
not now the case may very well be the fault of Christians, past and
present, and not the fault of the defense workers.
Of course, the easy answer is to cause suffering to someone we don’t like
so as to alleviate the suffering of someone we do; or to see the problem in
terms of things (money and bombs) rather than people. We
Christians are not to seek vengeance on the defense workers because of
their production of bombs, but it seems easier to overcome evil with evil
than to attempt to overcome evil with good. In this evil world we would
like to keep just a little evil for our own use, just for self-defense.
We in our human fear forget that man has no more power to destroy himself
than he has power, of himself, to draw his next breath. So we abandon the
methods of Jesus Christ and allow Satan to win the decisive battle and so
rob us of our share in the assured victory of Christ.
Took the traditional Render-unto-Caesar / Romans 13 line, asserting that
U.S. currency
belongs to the
U.S.
government, which can reclaim from Christians it at will.
I found myself cheering enthusiastically when the article by Pastor
Slabaugh on the payment of war taxes appeared… I hope there will be more
and more freedom in church papers to deal with this up and coming concern.
Considerations of conscientious war-tax resistance point up some larger
problems that we as the Mennonite Church live with but don’t necessarily
resolve. These problems have to do not with the ample biblical teaching
supportive of noncompliance with war support, but rather, with the lack of
practical models as well as awareness of support resources and groups.
These facilities would greatly enhance our ability to work out responsible
individual witness stances. Several kinds of practical questions seem to
emerge.
In the first place, what ranges of governmental receptiveness (especially
IRS
receptiveness) have been encountered by members of our faith and what
constructive follow-up responses have we Mennonites explored after we are
categorized as tax-evaders? Second, and more specifically, what kinds of
deduction possibilities have been attempted and upon what rationale?
Third, how may we relate the quality of committed Anabaptist peace
perspectives to the degree we withhold tax dollars? Finally, what types of
congregational support models have emerged and what growth has occurred in
each process?
I seem to hear the Apostle Peter speaking across a vast expanse of time
and firmly addressing not only a failing government but a growing church
as well with a burning perspective — “One should obey God more than men”
(Acts 5:29).
Yes. Now how does it happen within the war-tax arena in practical terms?
There is much discussion about the war tax. Maybe we should also give some
thought to the balance of our tax money. We can name the education tax, the
research tax, welfare tax, road tax, regulatory tax, as a few. We can also
identify the abortion tax, tobacco subsidy tax (although maybe this isn’t a
concern since we accept the fact that a lot of grain goes to the liquor
industry), the waste and fraud tax, and of course the congressman salary
tax that pays the people that vote for the war tax. On the local scene we
have others, including the state, county, and city police tax. I wonder if
paying the tax for local law enforcement could be understood to say that we
recognize that the state needs to carry a stick. Is it possible that it’s
the church’s responsibility to decide how big that stick should be? All
this gets somewhat complicated and confusing. It would be much simpler if
taxes were just taxes.
I thought Fretz’s commentary was a good demonstration of how much the
terms of the debate had shifted, even from the point of view of the
pro-taxpaying faction:
Nonresistant Christians pay taxes
Jesus’ kingdom is one of testimony to truth, saving truth, truth that
changes lives, truth that builds character. Caesar’s kingdom was one that
used the sword to restrain evil and even to crucify the innocent.
And yet Jesus had told inquirers to show Him the coin used for paying
taxes to Caesar.
Then He asked them, “Whose portrait is this? and whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied. Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is
Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
Jesus did not discuss what percent of the tax money was spent for soldiers
or for war, even though He knew this. There was no implication in His
teaching that taxes paid to Caesar should be called “war taxes” or that
nonresistant Christians should try to avoid payment of such taxes because
they knew they would be used for military purposes.
In reference to payment of specific taxes for support of the military
enterprise such as were imposed by the Continental government in the time
of the Revolution, one can understand that nonresistant Christians found
themselves unable to pay them and especially so since it was
revolutionaries who were asking for them — to subsidize their rebellion.
Then, too, one can understand the attitude of the nonresistant Hutterites
in Moravia who were asked to pay a special war tax to support the war
against the Turks in the 1500s. Peter Riedemann, their leader, said: “For
war, killing, and bloodshed (where it is demanded especially for that) we
give nothing but not out of wickedness or arbitrariness, but out of the
fear of God (1 Tim. 5)
that we may not be partakers in strange sins” (“Taxation,”
The Mennonite Encyclopedia,
p. 688).
I do not agree with Daniel Slabaugh that the federal income tax is a war
tax, per se. His entire article is based on calling it
that… However, it is a good thing to give one’s farm to the church (and so
reduce one’s payment of a tax that is partly used for military purposes).
But should such gifts be given to the church only to reduce payment of
federal income tax? Would not a more scriptural reason be to help the
church in its mission of testifying to the truth?
When I was a young man of 18, I was graciously healed from a critical
attack of pneumonia, and I decided to devote my life to full-time service
to the Lord, wherever and whenever He would want me to serve. For fifty
years I have served in mission work or Christian school teaching on an
income basis that took care of my needs (Phil. 4:19),
but often exempted me from payment of federal income tax, especially if I
was faithful in support of the Lord’s work and diligent to claim other
exemptions and deductions.
But I do not call federal income tax a war tax, nor think I should promote
nonpayment of it on this basis. Should others want to follow my example of
devoting their lives and income to the Lord’s work I would encourage them
to do so, not primarily to avoid payment of federal income tax, but in
order to build Christ’s church on earth.
I think we need to watch that we don’t lose our salvation in going overboard
in some subjects. I do appreciate a country where we have freedom of worship
to our God. The best way to show our appreciation is to pay our taxes. To
hold some back and refuse to pay, saying, “We don’t want to pay for war” is
not the answer. How do you know that the remaining taxes you pay can also be
put in the military? The taxes are for the government to use and it is
theirs. The responsibility of how and where it is used is theirs also.
I have become increasingly aware of the fact that the issue of payment of
war taxes is dividing the Mennonite Church. I have indeed found myself
pulling for both sides at different times and I realize that much study in
the Word of God is required.
As far as Daniel Slabaugh’s article… is concerned, he raised some very good
questions and made us more aware of our need as a church to come together on
this issue. I am not sure that our problems will go away by all of us
turning our properties over to the church but I do believe Daniel made an
honest response.
I’m not convinced that war taxes is the real issue. Right now this is the
issue that is surfacing, but somehow I believe that God is speaking to all
of us about how we use His money. We are living in an age where luxuries are
now necessities, and giving is done when it is convenient. That doesn’t add
up to the teachings in the New Testament at all.
My suggestion would be to try to live a simpler lifestyle. It is very
obvious only those that make increasing amounts of money pay taxes. Could we
lower our standard of living and give more thereby reducing our taxable
income? My suggestion would include taking a look at the Macedonian church
as Paul talks about them in 2 Cor. 8:1–7.
He tells us that they have given as much as they were able and even beyond
their ability. It would be good to learn a lesson from them. Also let’s look
at what Paul says to the Corinthians in 2 Cor. 9:6–7:
“Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows
generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he has
decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God
loves a cheerful giver”
(NIV).
Farrar saluted Kratz’s letter, and added: “we must first really tithe all
of our incomes… a life of voluntary simplicity… would make all talk or tax
resistance superfluous. Indeed, I believe the only radical response to
war — that which strikes at the root causes — is voluntary poverty.”
Shall we tell our Caesar that he is wrong? Peter and Paul both said that we
should submit to the authorities and that we should show them honor and
respect. Since we live under a democracy instead of a dictatorship I would
like to suggest that we show respect and honor to our president by sending
him a message. No, not just a letter or a phone call, but a money message.
You know, money speaks!
Let all Mennonites and any others that care to join them send their tax
monies to the Mennonite General Board to forward to the
IRS in
one lump payment with the message, "We, the people, request these monies be
used for people programs and none be used for military purposes.” That would
be democratic and respectful, would it not?
The implications of this statement for the Mennonite Church today are
enormous. Most Americans, believing what the popular media and the
government propaganda tells them, are not really aware of the dangerous path
we are walking as we pile up arms and simultaneously arm other nations
involved in active wars — both internal and international. Mennonites have
been well informed for years about these things but have done far too
little, even symbolically, to redress the imbalance. There is no excuse for
this. When will the church recoil from the unavoidable fact that our taxes
and our greed are destroying our brothers and sisters while we read these
lines? When will we give a strong, clear “No” to the government’s growing
demand for funds for war?
There remains but one immediate response that will suffice — that of
voluntary poverty (living below the federal tax line) and personal service
to those we have wronged. The list of places to work is staggering and
growing longer: Somalia, Cambodia, Italy, Lebanon, the Persian Gulf,
Bangladesh, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Brazil, Mississippi, the inner city,
Appalachia…
Mr. Reagan proposes to cut taxes while increasing the war budget
drastically. He knows there is a real economic crisis simmering in the
U.S., yet is
blind to the fact that our military dominated economy is the single greatest
cause of inflation and unemployment. While he officially opposes the draft
he wants more sophisticated instruments of mass slaughter, costing enormous
amounts of money.
I call the Mennonite Church to stop evading responsibility and challenge her
to stand up publicly, and by word and action, witness for peace and justice
and a nation more ready to welcome the kingdom of God.
Helmuth made a long-overdue frontal assault on the traditional
interpretation of Romans 13:
Is one government ordained as much as another?
Taxes and the faithful church
Twenty years ago efforts to introduce ideas of war-tax refusal into the
Mennonite church met with little response. Times have changed and Daniel
Slabaugh’s “Testimony Regarding the Payment of War Taxes”… indicates how
deeply we are now being challenged on this issue.
No one who endeavors to live in the spirit of Christ can feel easy while
helping to finance the machinery of war. We all want to feel our lives are a
consistent witness for the truth of Christ’s love and are, therefore, made
increasingly uneasy as the testimony against war taxes gains currency within
the church.
The standard method of reasoning, to put at ease those whose conscience has
grown tender on this point, is to remind them that the government is
ordained of God and that Christians, therefore, are to obey the government.
(An exception to this reasoning is made in the case of personal military
service. Having allowed this exception we must, it seems to me, allow that
growth in moral sensitivity may well lead to further civil disobedience. )
What exactly does it mean to say “the government is ordained of God”? To
approach this question we need to distinguish two levels of ordination.
First, we hold the church to be ordained of God in a unique way, quite
distinctly different in origin, character, and mission from other social
institutions. Second, because God is the origin and sustainer of all life,
it may be said that, in general, social institutions are ordained of God.
Plainly, the idea of government being ordained of God belongs to the second
level.
Now, it seems to me, that when someone argues that I must pay my taxes
because the government is ordained of God, they are confusing the two
levels. They are talking as if the government was as uniquely and as
specifically ordained of God as the church. This is plainly not true, and a
good many of our ancestors laid down their lives to avoid this confusion.
Government is born out of a human predisposition to organize and control.
Slavery, being derived from the same human predisposition, may also be
regarded as having once been ordained of God. Slavery evidently gave the
apostle Paul no moral pause. He did not foresee that it would become
intolerable to Ghristian morality. Nor did he foresee that governments would
fall and rise through a wide variety of processes, including representative
assemblies, constitutional conventions, force of arms, and subversive
manipulation.
To regard all governments as somehow equally ordained of God is to sever the
concern for social justice from its biblical mandate. A large talent for
political naivety would be required to see the government visited on Uganda
by Idi Amin and the government of Switzerland as equally legitimate.
It is possible to argue that one’s own government is “more ordained” than
others, but such a self-serving view brings with it the whole baggage of
civil religion, and ill befits the world-servant role to which we understand
ourselves called. Governments may be ordained of God in some general
naturalistic sense, but people who care about social justice and human
well-being must judge whether they are legitimate or illegitimate.
Perhaps because Mennonites have a traditional aloofness from politics, the
matter of legitimacy in government often seems poorly understood. I have
seen it argued recently in the Mennonite press, and supported by biblical
proof texts, that opposing the government on the war-tax issue is the same
as opposing God.
It is important to understand that the political framework needed to support
this argument is something very close to the “divine right of kings.” Why
this antique political notion, deriving from ancient and medieval despotisms
and seriously confusing church and state, should be used against the
testimony of tax refusers in the Mennonite Church is, indeed, a curious
matter. Perhaps others, better equipped than I, can delve lovingly into the
motivations of this desperate argument.
Life in North America has been so good to our people that it is difficult to
imagine Mennonites becoming an outlaw church on the issue of war taxes. Yet
the teachings of Jesus and the demands of faithfulness, if taken seriously,
plainly move us in that direction. The conviction that the faithful church
must, at times, become an outlaw church should not be shocking to those
acquainted with Anabaptist origins and history.
If we don’t draw the line at paying for nuclear weapons (or conventional
weapons, for that matter), will we draw it at their use? Military planners
no longer regard nuclear weapons as of deterrent use only. They are openly
talking about a limited use of their offensive first-strike capacity.
What if a nuclear bomb had been dropped on Hanoi in an effort to end the war
in Vietnam? What if the American government uses nuclear weapons to maintain
access to Middle East oil? Would the church then draw the line and move into
a position of active tax refusal? Or will we sit tight, no matter what the
government does?
Is there any threshold of violence or oppression which the government might
cross that would cause the Mennonite Church to advocate tax refusal?
Yoder was having nothing of such scriptural revisionism:
“The teachings of Jesus and the demands of faithfulness, if taken
seriously, plainly move us in that direction [of resisting taxes which may
be used for military purposes],” writes Keith Helmuth…
Whatever teachings he has in mind, however, he neglects to identify. Of
course, that is a common omission among Mennonite writers who advocate tax,
draft, and other forms of “resistance” and “civil” disobedience. Bold
assertions, sharp reasonings, and generalized allusions to Scripture. But,
no direct quotes or citings of passages.
I feel the teachings of Jesus plainly move us in a direction radically
different from tax resistance. I find those teachings in such places as
Mt. 5:41
where Jesus is quoted as instructing those who would seriously seek the
kingdom to, if forced to go a distance, continue on an additional distance.
It is my understanding that this teaching likely referred to the practice
of the Roman army to conscript civilians, literally off the street, and
force them to carry military supplies for perhaps a mile or so. From that
it seems logical for me to conclude that Jesus did not even exclude forced
assistance of the military (such as by taxes) from the compensatory love
response he prescribed for those who are beaten, stolen from, forced to do
things against their will.
Certainly the faithful church will often also face becoming an outlaw
church. The Scripture makes that plain. But, search as I may, I can’t find
any scriptural evidence that resisting taxes is something our Lord would
call us to. Rather, I can only conclude tax resistance to be a symptom of
the philosophy of those seeking a political kingdom and a social salvation
through the exercise of earthly power.
It seems to me that it is only fair that Mennonite editors ask writers
supporting tax resistance to document all supportive references found in
Scripture for their points. I think we readers are by now quite familiar
with their reasonings and rhetoric. If they have a scriptural basis, let’s
hear it.
D.R. Yoder is correct. I cannot cite a specific teaching of Jesus on war tax
refusal.
The case for war tax refusal, however, rests not on proof texts, but on the
fact that Jesus introduced a profound moral vision, with an extraordinary
potential for growth, into the stream of human consciousness. When Jesus was
asked about the “greatest commandment” He replied: “Thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it.
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
Starting from this masterly summation of spiritual life, faithfulness, it
seems to me, depends on our growth in moral sensitivity and not on our
ability to correctly analyze all the cultural idiosyncrasies to which Jesus
was necessarily responding. Should we help finance the defoliation of our
neighbor’s rice fields or the massacre of her family just because Jesus
never had the occasion to comment on those situations? I think it entirely
fair to say the “teachings of Jesus” move us away from such behavior.
It was recognized by the early Anabaptists that personal military service
was seriously out of harmony with “the teachings of Jesus.” The refusal of
state ordered military service is not a specific injunction of Jesus, but
the growth in moral sensitivity which accompanied the Anabaptist movement
drew out this inherent aspect of the gospel. The same process, apparently,
kept the Anabaptist settlers in the New World from making use of readily
available slave labor, though Jesus nowhere condemns the institution of
slavery. It is this same growth in moral sensitivity, …which is now focusing
the issue.
As for “seeking a political kingdom and a social salvation through the
exercise of earthly power,” I doubt that very many who support the witness
of war tax refusal have any such aspirations. “Political kingdoms” can only
exist on the conscripted lives and resources of our communities and it is
exactly this that tax refusal opposes. The concept of “social salvation”
has, by now, lost even its nostalgia value. Our dreams are far more modest.
We hope to avoid nuclear holocaust and keep the planet habitable. We want
the resources now being wasted in military budgets to help feed, house, and
clothe the poor of the world. This is not “social salvation.” It is only
good sense and common decency.
One final note: The issue of war tax refusal is one that all persons have to
weigh in the balance against all the other important factors in their lives.
Judge not is the rule here. What makes no sense from the standpoint of a
growing family might come to make good sense after 50.
Our lofty discussion is probably beside the point. If we could see the
anguish that brings people to the point of tax refusal we would be inundated
with images of napalm and herbicides raining down on Vietnam, families
massacred in El Salvador, and the chilling vision of the neutron bomb
grinning over empty cities.
All our rhetoric, all our proof texts stagger and fall in the face of a dead
child and screaming mother with helicopters thundering overhead. The
crucifixion of Christ’s flesh is ever before us. Our sins roll across the
landscape. We do what we must and pray for strength.
In the Mennonite Board of
Congregational Ministries board of directors met.
Among their decisions:
In harmony with the General Board
action to support the General Conference Mennonite Church in their judicial
challenge of the collecting of taxes by church agencies, the board acted to
encourage staff “to publicize among our congregations the issues involved in
the judicial action and the need for funds for this purpose.”
The organizers of the Smoketown Consultation (which was in part a conservative
Eastern Mennonite backlash against war tax resistance and other innovations)
met again in in what was
called the “Berne consultation.” This time, however, according to
Gospel Herald:
“Little attention at Berne was given to war taxes, a dominant theme at Smoketown…”
…neither the Mennonite Church nor the IKV
feels comfortable with individual radical action. Example: Dirk Visser, a
Dutch Mennonite journalist working for the equivalent of the Associated Press
wire services in the Netherlands, called my attention to Willem-Jan Maas, a
Mennonite minister serving in Opeland. This minister tried to funnel what he
considered the war-taxes portion of his income tax to the Dutch Mennonite
Peace Group via the local income tax office.
This effort was fraudulently aborted by the tax officers, but even had it been
successful, the minister would not have been applauded by the IKV,
according to Visser. The IKV
has taken the political action route and with that the churches can cooperate.
In a Peace Tax Fund-boosting article
in the issue, it was noted that
war tax resisters acted as the “bad cop” to the “good cop” of lobbyists:
“[David] Bassett and others cited the ‘inconvenience factor’ of current war tax
resistance to the IRS as further incentive for change in the tax laws.”
Richerd Lewman, Jr. went back on
the offensive with a forceful rebuttal of Christian war tax resistance for the
issue:
To accept the statements that justify the nonpayment of war taxes is to accept
the statement that Jesus was a hypocrite.
After reading much about the war-tax issue and listening to much discussion,
both pro and con, I wanted to find out more about the issue, so that I could
take a stand consistent with God’s teachings. I read all that I could that
justified not paying taxes. Then I read as much as possible justifying the
payment of taxes. Both of these included much Bible reading and prayer. I then
did a lot more praying and asking God to guide me to what his truth is. He led
me to more reading and research.
After all of this, I was led to only one conclusion. If we believe Jesus
taught that we should not pay taxes to a government in the process of or
planning to slaughter people, then Jesus was a hypocrite because he paid his
taxes. If Jesus was a hypocrite, because he taught one thing and did another,
then Jesus sinned and he was not the unblemished lamb suitable to die for our
sins. So there cannot be salvation through him.
The first point made by those who would condone, even encourage, the
nonpayment of war taxes, is that income tax is voluntary, because it requires
citizen cooperation and to pay it is to agree with the government’s policies.
Using this same line of thinking we could say that all laws are voluntary, and
to obey them is to agree with them. I may not agree that I should not drive
any faster than 55 miles per hour, but if I decide not to obey the law I will
be penalized for it. If I pay my taxes I do not necessarily agree with how my
tax money is spent. But I still must pay.
A second point that is made is that the personal responsibility of loving my
neighbor comes before the law. I agree. But, I ask this question. What were
some of Jesus’ actions and how did they coincide with his teachings? Many
instances of civil disobedience and tax evasion have been justified using
Jesus’ teachings. I feel that his teachings are removed from their context if
they are not in agreement with the example of his perfect life. Do we read in
the Bible that Jesus went to Rome to picket in front of the Senate about the
atrocities committed against Jerusalem. Do we find Jesus lobbying to have the
Roman troops withdrawn from the temple, or for the exemption of the Jews from
paying the many taxes levied on them largely for the support of the
bloodthirsty Roman army? Or do we find Jesus not paying his war taxes? The
answer to each of these questions is a very clear “No!”
But wait, you say it was different back then. Was it?
They say that we must not pay our taxes, in order to make a witness, since we
as Mennonites are not drafted anymore. Well, the Jews in Jesus’ time were not
drafted either. They say they did not have conscription back then. Wrong.
Conscription dates back to the earliest civilization. They say that our
government needs our money more than our bodies. Well, the Roman government
needed money, because many of the soldiers were professionals and they fought
for the money. They say today we have the atom bomb, the most destructive war
machine ever devised by man, up to this time. Back then it was the Roman army,
the most destructive and bloodthirsty war machine ever devised by man, up to
that time.
How do we know that Jesus paid his taxes? The Tribute Coin referred to by
Jesus was a coin used to pay the poll tax which had to be paid by every male
person, ages 14–65, and by females, ages 12–65. If Jesus had not paid his tax,
would not the Pharisees and Sadducees have brought this to the attention of
Pilate when Jesus was before him, since they were looking for something to
convict him of?
If you say that Jesus’ teachings are that we should not pay our war taxes, I
cannot accept this. I believe that Jesus was the perfect example of the
Christian life and that his life was consistent with his teachings and that he
was not a hypocrite. If Jesus paid taxes to the government of his time, then I
can do no less. In fact, I must pay those taxes if I am to be in accordance
with Jesus’ life and teachings.
You say that we must follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. I agree, but how
do we discern the leading of the Holy Spirit? We must go to the Bible. If the
Bible and Jesus’ example contradict what we thought was the leading of the
Holy Spirit, then it can’t be the leading of the Holy Spirit. The leading of
the Holy Spirit, if it is authentic, will always agree with the life and
teachings of Jesus.
You ask. Why doesn’t the Mennonite Church take an official position against
payment of war taxes? I ask you. How can we take an official position
condemning something that Jesus did? I am in no position to question Jesus’
actions!
If we are to be consistent about not paying our war taxes because we disagree
with their purpose, then let’s stop paying that portion of our taxes that goes
for abortion and subsidizes the tobacco industry. But then, why not withhold
our property taxes if the schools teach evolution or sex education? Once the
pattern of nonpayment as protest is begun, there will be no logical place to
stop.
Jesus taught us to pay our taxes and his example showed us we must do the
same. If I am to be a Christian and desire Jesus to say to me someday, “Well
done, good and faithful servant,” then I can do no less than pay my taxes.
A
letter from Elvin Glick
fired just about every arrow from the traditionalist quiver: “there is no such
thing as a war tax” — “The government has a right to its armies and police
forces.” — “Governments have a right to levy taxes.” — Render unto Caesar, two
kingdoms, go the extra mile, Romans 13, Jesus & Paul never resisted their
governments, war taxes are different from military service,
etc.
[One extreme of the feedback:] In 22½ hours of business sessions, 266
delegates who answered the roll call “dragged their feet in giving women equal
leadership opportunities in the church, in speaking with a clear voice on
nuclear armaments and war taxes, and in preparing a relevant and up-to-date
confession of faith.”
In their business sessions delegates… in the longest discussion of the
week — struggled with how to realize reconciliation with a delegate who
denounced them for continuing to pay war taxes.
Most of the floor discussion centered in the letter to President Reagan…
“There’s an unfortunate philosophy behind this letter,” said James Hess,
Bethel, Pa. “It’s that
because I’m a Christian, I’m qualified to advise the government how to go
about its business. That goes against our historic doctrine of the separation
of church and state.”
Said Dan Slabaugh, Whitmore,
Mich.: “The president will
laugh when he reads this letter — if he reads it at all. He’ll laugh because
he knows that every payday we disavow what we say when we continue to pay our
taxes for war.”
A sidebar to that article read:
A prophetic voice?
How does the assembly process minority viewpoints? That became the focus in an
intense discussion engaging assembly delegates for 2½ hours beyond their
scheduled closing time in the final business session.
Impetus for the discussion came when Dan Slabaugh, Whitmore Lake,
Mich., asked permission to
make a four-minute statement on a concern of his. He confronted delegates with
their failure to back up their sentiments about peace, as stated in their
letter to President Reagan, with their actions. “Why do you continue to pay
taxes that go for war purposes?” he asked. “The religious community in America
could stop the arms buildup if it wanted to; I can’t understand why this
doesn’t excite us.”
Slabaugh reported he had wanted to put two motions on the floor but had been
advised by assembly leaders not to. (Later discussion revealed one motion
would have called delegates to acknowledge that paying war taxes was sin but
that they planned to continue doing so anyway; the other would have called for
all Mennonites to stop paying war taxes immediately.) In frustration Slabaugh
concluded: “I joined the Mennonite Church because of its stand on peace and
nonresistance. I will leave it for the same reason.” He then walked off the
assembly floor to participate in a seminar on war taxes.
In subsequent discussion, many delegates voiced concern about the incident and
called for reconciliation to be effected between Slabaugh and assembly
leaders. There was also discussion on how the assembly can hear a prophetic
word and what is the process by which it is determined whether or not a
minority opinion is prophetic.
After long discussion, delegates approved a motion which (1) made Slabaugh’s
concerns about war taxes a part of the official record of the assembly; (2)
asked the Council on Faith, Life, and Strategy to bring proposals to the next
assembly for dealing with the war tax issue and for discerning “prophetic
voices”; (3) called for immediate steps to be taken to bring about
reconciliation between Slabaugh and the assembly.
For Suzanne Polen, a part-time research microbiologist in Pittsburgh,
President Reagan’s recent decisions to increase arms spending mean that she
will no longer pay that portion of her taxes she says would fund national
defense. “The government is buying weapons which will eventually kill me,”
said the 45-year-old tax protester. Instead of paying her full tax bill to the
government, she plans to deposit about 50 percent of the money into the newly
created Pittsburgh Fund for Life, which describes itself as a peace and
justice ministry.
Since the Vietnam War ended, Wildon Fadely of the Internal Revenue Service
said, the number of those who have withheld taxes to protest Pentagon
activities has been “minuscule.” The category is so small that no separate
records are kept, he added. But he admitted his general impression was the
“protests of all kinds are on the rise.”
A conservative Anabaptist conference on “Basic Biblical Beliefs”
was held in . Among its
concerns for the church: “There is a growing alignment with ‘leftist elements’
who advocate civil disobedience, demonstrations, and nonpayment of taxes used
for military purposes.”
We call for acts of tax resistance to be undertaken since our federal income
taxes fuel the arms race. We suggest giving funds denied for use in building
nuclear weapons to groups working for peace and disarmament, and to groups
meeting human needs.
Jim Longacre, Peace Section chairman, brought a statement of concern to the
group for possible adoption. After the document was criticized for not being
specific enough, the group moved to add a paragraph on the war tax issue.
Although there was some dissent regarding the usefulness of a statement (one
person noted: “It’s easier to assent to a piece of paper than to be
accountable”), and the initial voting process was confused and had to be
repeated, the majority of the participants approved the statement.
That section of the statement read:
We were repeatedly reminded in this Assembly that the conscription of our
income supports the nuclear arms race. Moreover, we saw that the government is
increasing expenditures for nuclear and other weapons by decreasing
expenditures for human services for the poor and oppressed. We encourage
people to consider ways to witness against this evil use of the power of
taxation, such as refusing to pay the military portion of the federal income
tax.
Episcopal Bishop Robert H. Cochrane of Olympia,
Wash., while denouncing the
worldwide buildup of nuclear arms, stopped short of condoning a tax revolt as
did his Roman Catholic counterpart.
“Please know that I shall continue to pay to my government every penny of my
income tax, but at the same time every penny that I save under our president’s
new tax plan I shall give away to meet the needs of the poor and uncared for,”
Bishop Cochrane said in his annual address to the diocesan convention.
“I invite you to do the same.”
Bishop Cochrane’s diocese covers western Washington, the same area taken in by
the archdiocese of Catholic Archbishop Raymond G. Hunthausen of Seattle. The
archbishop has become a rallying point for a growing anti-nuclear movement
among leaders of nearly a dozen denominations in the Pacific Northwest.
Archbishop Hunthausen has said that people would be morally justified in
refusing to pay 50 percent of their income taxes in nonviolent resistance to
nuclear “murder and suicide.” He also said he favors unilateral nuclear
disarmament.
Truman H. Brunk, Jr., snuck a
war tax resistance message into his article
“Disarmed by his peace”:
Neither can Christians hide their eyes from the evil insanity of the arms
race. Christ came to signal peace on earth, not preparation for war. Christ’s
peace means that we cannot participate in the crime of preparation for nuclear
war. The obedience of Christians to their government is not absolute and
unconditional. We need the courage to avoid adding even a particle of evil to
our broken creation. How long can good Mennonites pray for peace and pay for
nuclear readiness with our tax dollars?
[T]here are three things God is doing in Ames, Iowa… [including] the
formulation of guidelines for a war tax alternative fund.
[Ames Mennonite Fellowship] is taking the lead in establishing a war tax
alternative fund for persons in the Ames area who are conscientiously opposed
to paying taxes for war. In ,
AMF
took formal action to establish the fund. Since then, some $300 has been
contributed to it. On
seven persons gathered and drew up guidelines for participation in the fund.
In brief, the group determined that contributors to the fund need to pay “an
equivalent to the amount actually withheld from Internal Revenue Service.”
Participants are expected to sign a “statement of purpose and guidelines” at
the time of the first deposit. Keith Schrag, Dan Clark, and other
AMF
participants in the fund welcome questions and counsel from the broader church
in this matter.
This is the twenty-third in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
Here’s how Larry Cornies of the Gospel Herald
reported on the negotiations between the General Conference Mennonite Church
and the
IRS
(the Mennonite Church, with which Gospel Herald was
associated, was supporting the General Conference action but from a bit of a
distance):
Representatives of the General Conference Mennonite Church and the Internal
Revenue Service failed to reach an 11th-hour
compromise at a meeting in Washington on
which would have averted a suit by the 63,000-member denomination against the
government agency.
IRS
officials at the meeting denied that there was any administrative solution to
the conference’s complaint that it must withhold the income taxes of its
employees, thereby acting as a tax collector for the state. The denomination
has argued, and will argue in a forthcoming judicial action, that the
IRS
requirement violates the concept of separation of church and state as embodied
in the First Amendment in the
U.S. Constitution.
“The 45-minute meeting was cordial, but unproductive,” said Vem Preheim,
general secretary for the conference. “We outlined our concerns about the
withholding issue as a historic peace church and described the problem which
the IRS
requirement poses for us.”
William Ball, the conference’s attorney in the matter, then formally asked
members of the
IRS’s
special working group on withholding issues whether there was any way to
exempt the General Conference from the problematic requirement.
Nancy Schuhmann, who chairs the special group, stated that the
IRS must
abide by its codes of operation and would not be able to offer an exemption on
tax withholding to the conference.
IRS
officials Susan Cunningham and Gail Libin were also present for the
discussions.
In light of the results of the
meeting, attorney Ball will complete the preparation of the conference
complaint and submit the brief to a
U.S. district court
after one last check to make sure all administrative possibilities have been
exhausted.
The General Conference’s General Board was authorized to initiate a judicial
action on the tax withholding question at an international gathering of the
conference membership at Estes Park,
Colo., in
.
More than a year earlier, on ,
delegates to a special midtriennium conference session instructed the General
Board to “use all legal, legislative, and administrative avenues for
achieving[”] conscientious objector exemption to the tax withholding
requirement.
John J. Hostetter, Jr. attacked
the new war tax resistance craze in a commentary titled “Render unto Caesar”:
In the , issue of the
Gospel Herald, the forms of protest on nuclear
weaponry advocated by
MCC,
Peace Section, include the following, “We call for acts of tax resistance to
be undertaken since our federal income taxes fuel the arms race. We suggest
giving funds denied for use in building nuclear weapons to groups working for
peace and disarmament, and to groups meeting human needs.”
Such statements are damaging and completely misleading. It gives the
impression to the uninformed that an option for taxpayers is withholding part
of their tax liability and sending it somewhere of their own choosing. Rather,
the choice is whether one pays his tax or whether he pays his tax plus penalty
and interest. The only other possibility at present is fraud for deliberately
not reporting income, which is even more serious.
Pick and choose from the budget? Most ethical and religious protestors
base their action on the notion that one can pick and choose in the budgetary
items of the government, as a shopper at a department store. It is implied
that taxes are a voluntary contribution to the government by its citizens and
therefore, if they don’t like the way the money is spent, they can withhold
the part of the contribution they don’t like.
The courts have long ago settled this also. There is a classic quotation from
Judge Learned Hand, “Over and over again courts have said that there is
nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as
possible. Everybody does so, rich and poor, and all do right, for nobody owes
any public duty to pay more than the law demands; taxes are enforced
exactions, not voluntary contributions.”
While one can so arrange his affairs to pay as little as possible within the
law, this does not imply the right to pay the part one likes and refuse the
rest any more than one can dictate how the groceryman uses the money paid for
groceries. Once the tax liability is assessed, it is no longer the taxpayer’s
money. Otherwise very few would pay any taxes since we all feel we have better
ways to spend money than the way the government spends it.
Some object to the defense budget, while others feel just as strongly about
the welfare program. Although far less than one tenth of one percent of church
people protest taxes to the point of refusing to voluntarily pay all of their
taxes without confiscation, yet probably a high percentage of Christians as
well as non-Christians would opt to send their tax money to a “Peace Fund”
were that option available. At present it is not. Perhaps in the future the
Congress may grant such an election in much the same way that taxpayers can
direct $1 of their taxes to the presidential election campaign. Even if such
were possible, it wouldn’t change the size of the budget for defense.
In the Waitzkin case of , the court said that
conscientious objectors couldn’t withhold 50 percent of their tax on the basis
of “war crimes” deduction. Neither religious beliefs nor international law
relieve citizens of tax liability. Tax is neutral on religious matters and is
imposed on all citizens, even though each may object to some specific
governmental expenditure on religious grounds.
Likewise in the McDade case, the “war crimes” deduction was disallowed. The
taxpayer’s belief that the government shouldn’t force its citizens to
participate in taking of lives didn’t relieve her of an obligation to pay tax.
In another case, the taxpayer’s deduction for “conscientious objection to
military expenditures” was denied and the negligence penalty imposed. Military
protest deduction wasn’t permitted under the code. Taxpayer lacked standing to
contest military expenditures of the government. (Reimer) In the Van Tol case,
the war tax credit was denied; sincerity of the taxpayer’s objection to war
didn’t excuse the tax liability.
The government gets the money. A few observations could be made. First,
such protestations, as sincere as they are, are not accomplishing what may be
the desire of the protest, in that the government ends up with more, not less,
money for undesirable purposes as a result of the protest. Not only will the
tax be collected, but penalty and interest as well. (The average increase is
$207 for penalty alone.)
Second, in the case of war or defense, not one cent less will be spent for
bullets, bombs, or battleships because of the protest. Tax money which we
might earmark for Cambodian Relief, as good as that might be, only means other
money out of the same treasury is used for what the Congress believes is
necessary for national defense, and if that is not enough, the government will
simply borrow what it needs. One who thinks that such a fund will change the
size of national defense has only a superficial method of salving his
conscience.
Third, Internal Revenue agents, with (against) whom I have worked, openly joke
at such protest tactics. Regardless of the agents’ own personal views on the
use of tax money, which all citizens agree leaves much to be desired, they as
public servants must go and collect the tax whether it is from an impoverished
taxpayer, a religious protestor, or a fraudulent evader. Thus all that is
accomplished is a reduction in efficiency and an increase in the cost of
collection in the tax system. The Revenue Service doesn’t make the laws;
Congress does. A much more valid approach is correspondence with those in
Congress responsible for the present law and who have the power to change it.
Certainly the revenue agents have no jurisdiction over setting up the national
budget.
Internal Revenue agents deserve our respect. They are, with some exceptions,
well trained and conscientious, doing a job necessary to insure compliance and
integrity in the tax system. (After all, Jesus selected one as one of his
disciples. While he wasn’t the star of the show, he certainly wasn’t the
villain either.)
It would be interesting to know what percentage of church people have ever
written to their congressman expressing their concern on militarism. The
percentage would probably increase if names and addresses of congressmen were
available on church bulletin boards with sample letters for those who want
some positive ways to express their concerns.
I cringe when reports come out in the paper of tax protestors who have been
convicted of tax evasion on religious grounds with a byline that they are
Mennonites, with the implied impression that this is a belief of such
churches. Mennonites do not believe that. Editors of newspapers and
periodicals should be corrected when it is implied. The vast majority of
Christians believe such a stance to be unscriptural teaching.
This prompted a series of letters to the editor in response:
Called Hotstetter’s commentary “a breath of fresh air” and said “the newer
viewpoint promoted so much presently is not the historical nor the
majority viewpoint of the Mennonite brotherhood.”
“I differ from his assessment that those in our churches who cannot in
Christian conscience pay war taxes are ‘simply being contrary.’ That seems
to me to be a judgment form the world rather than the Word. I believe
that, increasingly, those who have ears to hear will understand that,
while it may be contrary to the world, to resist payment of war taxes is
being faithful to the Word of God.”
The failure of the General Conference Mennonite Church to reach an agreement
with the Internal Revenue Service… should come as no surprise. Furthermore,
if the case goes to court the winner can be predicted with a considerable
degree of assurance. It will be Attorney Ball in collecting his fee. It is
to be hoped that our church does not emulate the unenviable position in
which that church now finds itself. It can hardly back down without
swallowing its pride and cannot push forward with any hope of success in the
untenable stance it is taking. The constituency should scream at using so
much funds on such a case.
The requirement of the service to withhold taxes and forward them to the
government is nothing new. It has been on the books for more than a
generation. If they had not signed the waiver on Social Security taxes, they
would have more of a leg to stand on. They can’t have it both ways.
Felt that even if Hostetter’s arguments were valid, “there is still the
conviction, scripturally based, that we must witness to Christ’s way of
peace. Our quiet support for the military as we pay our taxes each year is
not consistent with that witness.” Says Flickinger: “Christian war tax
resisters are basing their actions on Scripture, not on a desire to
attract persecution or publicity.”
The issue included an
editorial,
“As for taxes…”,
from Daniel Hertzler. There wasn’t much meat there. It talked around the
subject for the most part, though it did mention Hertzler’s own
dipping-his-toes-in: “For a time I resisted the telephone tax, but then I gave
up. Perhaps I was a little overly impressed by the threatening form letters
which began to come from the Internal Revenue Service. Also, tax refusal seemed
like a form of revolution. As an orderly Mennonite, revolution is not my
style.”
That prompted Art Landis to shoot back in the issue with
a letter to the editor
taking Hertzler to task for romanticizing earlier generations who “had no
compassion for the slave or the prisoner. I believe the state could have
constructed concentration camps and gas ovens next to their meetinghouses and
they would not have protested.”
Good statements can have a reverse and negative effect… The statement can
serve to immunize us and keep us from action. We have resolved our guilt by
preparing another statement. This statement calls for a radical change of
lifestyle. Guilt and inner conflict are not as easily laid aside as this
statement might indicate. Wrestling with the complex issues of peace does not
successfully reduce inner conflict. What would really happen if “the old self
that lives for self dies”? We call into judgment economic systems that keep
millions poor when we ourselves are very deeply rooted in that economic
system. We denounce wars, but no consensus can be reached regarding applying
the same biblical understanding to paying for the hardware of war as we have
for giving of our bodies for war.
[A]t Bowling Green when a brother expressed
his concern over the assembly’s failure to deal with the question of obedience
as it relates to payment of taxes for war. Even though long discussion
followed, business proceeded very much as usual…
The question that comes to my mind is whether we indeed should make statements
such as these when we know well enough that the very structures of our
institutions would be shattered if we attempted to live out the text of the
statement.
Responding to Seattle Catholic Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen’s call for a tax
revolt against the nuclear arms race, Lutheran pacifists have urged
co-religionists to join the protest, redirecting the money to the poor. “We
shall act on Bishop Hunthausen’s encouragement to resist a percentage of our
federal income tax that is symbolic of allocations made to the military,” said
the New York-based Lutheran Peace Fellowship, an independent intra-Lutheran
group which works with the International Fellowship of Reconciliation.
“We will no longer offer our tax dollars for a nuclear military that affronts
the lordship of Jesus. Instead, we choose to redirect resisted tax dollars to
the poor of our country and of our world.”
Conscientious tax resisters who were hoping the courts would find a place for
them in the U.S.
Constitution were disappointed (Levi Miller reporting):
Amish employers and employees cannot invoke their religious beliefs to avoid
paying Social Security and federal unemployment taxes, the Supreme Court ruled
on .
The unanimous decision overturned a western Pennsylvania judge’s ruling that
forcing the Amish to pay such taxes violates their freedom of religion.
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said, “The design of the [Social Security]
system requires support by mandatory contributions from covered employers and
employees.”
The controversy arose when the internal Revenue Service informed Edwin Lee, an
Old Order Amish carpenter from Lawrence County,
Pa., that he owed some
$27,000 in back taxes. Lee had not paid any Social Security taxes for himself
or his employees since . He also had not
withheld such taxes.
It was noted in the ruling that Congress has already provided for a tax
exemption that covers self-employed Amish, such as farmers. The Amish believe
that the church and the family should take care of the elderly and do not
withdraw the government funds at old age.
John A. Hostetler, a professor at Temple University and member of the Plains
Mennonite Church, commented on the ruling by saying that although “it is a
blow for religious liberty in general, in the long run it is better for the
Amish to pay it. If they were exempt, it would create jealousy.”
Hostetler said he did not know how many of these small shops would be
involved. “It will mean more paperwork for them,” he concluded.
A follow-up by Phil Shenk explained the consequences for war tax resisters:
The U.S. Supreme
Court indirectly referred to the issue of war tax resistance and the World
Peace Tax Fund in its
ruling, denying an Amish employer exemption from paying and collecting Social
Security taxes.
The unanimous decision, plus the arguments employed by the court, may also
have diminished the prospects for success in the General Conference Mennonite
Church’s case asking for an employer’s exemption from collecting
federal-military income taxes for the government.
In the Amish case, Amishman Edwin Lee had refused to withhold Social Security
taxes from his Amish employees’ paychecks and failed to pay the employer’s
share of their Social Security taxes, claiming that doing so would violate his
and his employees’ First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion.
Lee said the Amish believe it is sinful not to provide for their elderly and
needy themselves and therefore are opposed to the national social security
system.
Unlike the celebrated case, in which the
Supreme Court granted the Amish an exemption from Wisconsin’s compulsory
school-attendance law based on their free exercise of religion rights, the
Supreme Court here held that the government’s interest should overrule the
religious rights of the individual because it would be difficult for the
Social Security system to accommodate the “myriad exceptions flowing from a
wide variety of religious beliefs.”
In ruling that Amishman Lee’s First Amendment religious rights must “yield to
the common good,” the Supreme Court raised the issue of conscientious
objectors’ refusal to pay taxes that go for what the court called “war-related
activities.” The court said it could not see any difference between Lee’s
refusal to pay Social Security taxes and the position of one who refuses to
pay war taxes.
“If, for example, a religious adherent believes war is a sin, and if a certain
percentage of the federal budget can be identified as devoted to war-related
activities, such individuals would have a similarly valid claim to be exempt
from paying that percentage of the income tax.”
The problem with this, the court said, is that “[t]he tax system could not
function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax
payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.”
In a very broad statement that implicitly referred to religious conscientious
objection to federal-military income taxes as well as Social Security taxes,
the court revealed its basic rule: “Because the broad public interest in
maintaining a sound tax system is of such a high order, religious belief in
conflict with the payment of taxes affords no basis for resisting the tax.”
The court did recognize that Congress has passed a constitutionally sound law
that exempts Amish who are self-employed from paying Social Security taxes.
But it held that taxes imposed on employers “must be uniformly applicable to
all, except as Congress provides explicitly otherwise.” Because Congress has
not exempted Amish employers or their employees from Social Security taxes,
the court refused to honor their religious rights over the interests of the
nation as a whole.
Before Congress, in the proposed World Peace Tax Fund legislation, is explicit
language that would “exempt” conscientious objectors from paying war taxes and
instead divert their taxes to peaceful governmental activities. If passed,
this might provide the authority the court has implied it needs before it will
honor the rights of war tax objectors.
A Mennonite lawyer, John Yoder, is working as one of several assistants to
Chief Justice Burger, the author of the opinion striking down Amishman Lee’s
free exercise of religion rights. Burger’s Mennonite aide is originally from
Hesston, Kan.
The decision was so gratuitously dismissive of conscientious tax refusal that
the General Conference Mennonite Church decided to
halt its legal action,
on :
In the light of a negative judgment rendered by the
U.S. Supreme Court
against an Amish employer on ,
the General Conference’s judicial action committee has recommended to the
denomination’s General Board that a planned suit against the
IRS on
the issue of tax withholding “be put on indefinite hold.” The committee’s
decision came at the end of a
conference call with William Ball, who has been preparing the case
on behalf of the church group over the past year. During the telephone
meeting, Ball indicated that, considering the Supreme Court ruling in the case
IRS vs. Lee,
the General Conference would almost certainly lose its case.
In a cover story in the issue
Donald B. Kraybill proposed some ideas on
what to do about the threat of nuclear war.
Idea #10 was “Refuse to pay some of your federal income taxes as a witness to
your faith. If you’re scared, try a small amount like $7.77. If that’s too
scary, at least send a letter describing the difficulty of praying for peace
and paying for war. Those who pay taxes without sending such a letter are
quietly condoning and supporting the nuclear arms buildup.”
Raymond Hunthausen’s war tax resistance, which had been alluded to earlier, was
covered in a brief note:
Seattle Archbishop Raymond G. Hunthausen announced that he will withhold half
of his income tax to protest “our nation’s
continuing involvement in the race for nuclear arms supremacy.”
“As Christians imbued with the spirit of peacemaking expressed by the Lord in
the Sermon on the Mount, we must find ways to make known our objections to the
present concentration on further nuclear arms buildup,” the archbishop told
300 peace activists attending a meeting at Notre Dame University.
In the issue, Ivan H.
Stoltzfus felt compelled to write in to explain
“Why I pay taxes.”
The standard set of bible verses were deployed to explain that worldly goods
are at the disposal of worldly governments; Rome’s government was no better
than ours, so Paul’s advice in Romans 13 still holds; besides, it’s impossible
to determine what percentage of your taxes are objectionable, so you might as
well pay the whole thing. Still, Stoltzfus wrote, if there were a Peace Tax
Fund law, he’d go along with it.
A senate of priests in Iowa has voted to support a Catholic lay minister who
refuses to pay his federal income taxes as a protest against the nuclear arms
race.
The resolution approved by the representative group of priests in the Dubuque
Catholic archdiocese says they commend Tom Cordaro and
St. Thomas Aquinas parish at
Ames for their courageous stand relative to the payment of taxes for military
and nuclear armaments.
Mr. Cordaro, 27, has held back most of his income taxes
because he believes it would be a
sin to contribute money for nuclear weapons. The parish council at
St. Thomas Aquinas has refused
to honor an order by the Internal Revenue Service to turn over Mr. Cordaro’s
wages to satisfy the $828 tax debt.
Dan E. Hoellwarth made another attempt to defang Romans 13 in the
issue. According to him, the
description of government in that chapter should be seen as prescriptive, not
descriptive, and is meant to restrict which sorts of governments Christians owe
allegiance to: “what if the leaders are not acting in accordance with Scripture?”
“Obviously we should pay taxes… However…”
The Catholic war tax resisters were back again in the
issue:
The Catholic peace advocate Daniel Berrigan says he will take the church’s
anti-nuclear arms movement seriously “when we have a few bishops in jail.[”]
Berrigan, who is appealing a 3–10 year prison sentence for breaking into a
Pennsylvania nuclear plant, spoke to some 200 students and faculty members at
Fordham University.
The Jesuit priest said this “unparalleled threat to our survival” has made
civil disobedience — such as demonstrations and withholding federal income
taxes — a necessary component of the anti-nuclear movement.
He said he was encouraged by the fact that the American church hierarchy no
longer engages in “cold-war” rhetoric, and that the peace movement has made
some strides. But he added that the church, like the rest of the anti-nuclear
movement, has only “moved the diameter of a dime” toward serious opposition to
the arms race.
A Methodist pastor and wife in Portland, Oregon, withheld $1500 from their
U.S. income taxes.
They turned $1,000 of the money into $5 bills and gave them to persons they
found in line at the state of Oregon employment service.
According to the United Methodist John and Pat Schwiebert “clipped [a note] to
each $5 bill explaining that the couple was withholding a portion of their tax
‘because we cannot in good conscience do nothing while income we have earned
is used by our government to plan and carry out the killing of human beings…’ ”
After nearly a year in Laos, we feel a bit of fire brewing in our bones.
Surely, we think, the church can offer an alternative and a “no” to the
militarism and violence that is increasingly manifested around the world.
Surely we have a responsibility to end such suffering. Yet, as we turn to our
church papers (which we read avidly even though they arrive 4 to 5 months
late) we find that much of the discussion on peacemaking, including war-tax
resistance, seems to focus on the interpretation of certain biblical passages.
While it is important that these passages shape our thoughts and direct our
lives, it seems that too much time is spent fine-tuning favorite arguments in
comfortable, safe settings, far removed from the cries of those who suffer. We
wonder, for example, how well our arguments would stand up if the bombing
which occurred in many areas of Laos had instead destroyed our own communities
in Kansas, Ohio, or Manitoba.
The oil lamps burned late into the night when we visited the village. The day
before a Lao woman, the mother of 11 children, was killed when her hoe struck
a small anti-personnel bomblet that had buried itself under a root in her
garden. The bomblet, one of hundreds which still litter the soil, had been
dropped 10 to 15 years ago… Looking at the depression left in the soil by the
explosion, the hoe fragment, and the saddened eyes of the 10-year-old
daughter, we wondered who would own this family’s grief… who would answer for
this woman’s death?
The answer, we fear, is no one. Indeed the United States has created a
military system which can kill in such a way that no one need feel guilty.
Certainly no one in America, army general or taxpayer, will be accused of
plotting the death of this peasant woman. No international court will bring
bomb manufacturing companies to trial. Even to know which pilot dropped that
particular bomblet some ten years ago would be impossible. Thus we have
created death without a murderer.
Are we really so clever? Have we finally outwitted God, who would come and
ask, “Where is Abel, your brother?” Indeed, if God should come and ask, would
he not find us all guilty?
Of course, we as historic peace churches have often tried to separate
ourselves from our nation’s militaristic policies, to be a people with a
different identity. To some extent we have succeeded. The very fact that
Mennonite Central Committee is allowed to be in Laos is in large measure due
to the fact that we, as Mennonites, did not fight as
U.S. soldiers in
Indochina.
Nevertheless, how clean are we? Are our self-perceptions of innocence
realistic? Or have we been lured into a giant game of guilt evasion whose
players include Pentagon officials and common folk alike? While we ourselves
have not worn a soldier’s uniform, have not our taxes and our silence helped
to build weapons systems and to pay the salaries of those who fight? Though we
have espoused love and peace, could any of us stand before that peasant
woman’s family and state with assurance that we did not contribute to the
making of the weapon that killed her?
Thus, the presence of the shattered family in Muong Kham or the “cave
dwellers” in Sam Neua is disquieting to our spirits — the links between our
tax money and their suffering are too strong to ignore. The option of war tax
resistance then seems not like a matter for debate, but the next logical step
for all Christians who would work for peace in the world.
Perhaps many of you will disagree with us that withholding taxes is a faithful
part of peacemaking. May we plead however that before final judgments are
made, you listen to the voices of those hurt by our violence? Standing close
to them, we need to respond with compassion. What will we say? What will we
do?
A letter to the editor
from Robin Lowery followed: “They [the Peacheys] seem to base their conclusion
on the experience of those they dialogued with rather than on what God our
Father says to us through the Bible,” Lowery wrote. “It is a dangerous thing to
base our faith on experience and feelings.” We shouldn’t expect governments to
live up to Christian principles. Our worldly life is only temporary; we are
guests here and live under worldly rules temporarily. “War is a horrible thing,
but even more terrible is the judgment waiting for those who would oppose God
and what he has put in place.”
A
letter to the editor
from the Peacheys complained that their original article had been severely
edited:
As edited by Gospel Herald, our article seemed to
imply that all true peacemakers will engage in war-tax resistance. Certainly
we were urging Christians to seriously consider making some type of witness
with their tax return. Our original article acknowledged, however, that this
could take many forms. Some people may choose to live with an income below the
taxable level while others may wish to enclose a letter of concern with their
tax return. Some may withhold a symbolic amount while others withhold all of
their taxes.
Yet, none of these actions can be the whole of peacemaking. Rather, as we
stressed in our original submission, peacemaking is a total way of life which
embraces our troublesome next-door neighbor as well as those whom our country
defines as “enemy.” Further, as we seek to prevent suffering caused by North
American militarism, we must also turn to those in our communities who have
been cut off from help by our nation’s preoccupation with defense “needs.”
Finally, all of our actions must spring from our Christian faith. We cannot
work for peace out of guilt or a desire for personal innocence. Instead, what
we do, we do joyfully as a positive witness to life, to wholeness, and to our
faith in God who loves all people, irrespective of human barriers.
And Titus Peachey also wrote a follow-up article. Here is
an excerpt
that touches on war tax resistance:
The U.S.
asks neither for our consent or direct physical participation to send
weapons around the world such as the cluster bombs which were dropped in
Laos. It requires only our dollars and our silence. Can we continue to
give our government what it needs to make wars, and then serve the victims
of its violence with a clear conscience? Can we still claim to be
nonresistant if that violence was committed in defense of our way of life
in another part of the world?
Some of us felt that the shovels provided to Lao farmers in Xieng
Khouang should be purchased with money which Mennonites withheld from
their taxes, thereby making the connection between our nation’s militarism
and the victims of war. While some of the shovels were indeed purchased
with the Taxes for Peace Fund, many people cited legal, theological, and
practical problems with taking such an action.
From our vantage point in Laos, we admittedly worry more about the
theological, human, and practical problems of inaction. Can we
find common ground for a strong, unified, Mennonite peace witness which
deals more directly with our nation’s defense budget, arms sales, and
military aid?
MCC
has spent over $10,000 to purchase and ship about 1,200 shovels to Laos, and
$4,000 of that amount was allocated from
MCC’s
“Taxes for Peace” fund. This “Taxes for Peace” fund was established in
to receive contributions from church members
who had voluntarily withheld portions of their taxes as a symbolic protest
against the government’s excessive spending for military purposes.
“Since people withheld this money so that it could be used for peace instead
of war, we feel it especially appropriate that these dollars be used to help
clear the land of Laos of bomblets made and dropped by Americans,” explains
John Stoner, executive secretary of
MCC
U.S. Peace Section.
What is the meaning of conscientious objection to war in Canada today, and how
does this relate to the support of Canadian military industries and armed
forces activities? That is the focus of a task force on tax support of
Canadian military activities. A short document spelling out proposed goals and
research tasks of this group was mailed to each of the conferences earlier
this year asking for more guidance or support, perhaps after discussion at
their annual meetings. The initial work of this task force is being
coordinated by the Peace and Social Concerns office of
MCC
(Canada).
War tax resisters continued to have tough luck in
U.S. courts, as
this showed:
A Rhode Island couple who have refused to pay their federal income taxes
as a way of demonstrating their
opposition to military spending have lost their fight with the
U.S. Internal
Revenue Service. The United States Tax Court in Washington has not only
ordered Kevin and Linda Regan to pay $4,138 in back taxes and $206 in interest
for , but it has also slapped
the couple with a $500 fine for having “wasted” the government’s time and
money on “frivolous” actions. Although the decision was reached
, the
IRS
office here only announced it .
Keith Johnson, an
IRS
public affairs officer, said the agency was publicizing the Tax Court decision
because the Regans had been the subject of a long
Providence Journal-Bulletin story
in which the couple attempted to
justify their nonpayment of taxes on religious and moral grounds. In the
interview, the Regans argued that the arms race contradicted the Christian
belief against the taking of human life. “What we were presented with were
taxpayers who were saying they could withhold tax payments on moral grounds,”
Mr. Johnson said. “This is an argument that neither the
IRS,
nor the courts, accept.”
Finally, a
letter to the editor
from Weldon Nisly emphasized the parallel between conscientious objection to
the draft and conscientious objection to military taxation:
May we all have the faith and courage to stand with these young men of
conscience facing draft registration. It is indeed a difficult moment and
decision they and their families face. But it is not just they who face the
demands of the powers in our country and time. We all face a parallel decision
in a direct way with the demand for tax money to finance the Pentagon’s
headlong plunge toward death and destruction of all God’s creation and
creatures. The painful question of faith we ail face is will we contribute to
and cooperate with that demand of the powers or will we choose to place our
trust in God alone?
This is the twenty-fourth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
By war tax resistance had become commonplace
enough that I frequently saw incidental mention of it in articles about other
things. Here, I’ll stick to the mentions with more substance:
The issue included
an article on World Peace Tax Fund legislation lobbying efforts.
Apparently the Mennonite Central Committee’s
U.S. Peace Section
and D.C.
office were both busy lobbying for the bill, and the “historic peace church
taskforce on taxes” had hit on a lobbying method they called
dunamis which was described as “approach[ing] Congresspersons
in a spirit of compassion rather than confrontation.”
Forgive me; maybe I’ve been Mennonizing myself way too much lately and need to
back off for a while, but all this reminded me of William S. Burroughs’s
cynical description of weaponized Christian love (“Christ and the Museum of
Extinct Species”, Conjunctions
):
Let love squirt out like a fire hose of molasses. Give him the kiss of life.
Stick your tongue down his throat and taste what he has been eating and bless
his digestion, ooze down into his intestines and help him along with
his food. Let him know that you revere his rectum as part of an
ineffable whole. Make him know that you stand in naked awe of his
genitals as part of the Master Plan, life in all its rich variety.
Do not falter. Let your love enter in unto him and penetrate him with the
Divine Lubricant, makes K-Y and lanolin feel like sandpaper. It’s the most
mucilaginous, the slimiest, ooziest lubricant ever was or shall be, amen. It’s
known as the Greasy Ghost, will love you all over and inside out.
James Thomas, Lancaster,
Pa.; Brent Eash,
Middlebury, Ind.; and Edgar
Metzler were appointed as Mennonite Church representatives on the New Call to
Peacemaking Task Force on Taxes. The board encouraged Edgar to propose ways to
respond to current tax issues in the context of Bethlehem
, especially concerns raised at Bowling Green
. They also supported Edgar’s suggestions to
promote special prayer for peace and ways for congregations to share peace
concerns with neighboring churches.
The board endorsed the resolution proposed for consideration by the Bethlehem
General Assembly on “Conscientious Objection
to Military Taxes.” Edgar Metzler and MBCM
executive secretary Gordon Zook drafted the statement in consultation with the
members of the Council on Faith, Life, and Strategy and members of the General
Board.
About 30 marchers carried placards at the demonstration.
Clair Hochstetler wrote about a Good Friday demonstration that included some
creative war tax resistance activity, including some picturesque and
media-savvy (if somewhat haphazard) redirection:
“We are here as tax day approaches to announce our resistance to taxes which
are used for military purposes… We are here on
to commemorate the continuing
crucifixion of Jesus Christ — he is crucified again whenever individuals or
nations inflict violence on each other… We are here on
as a reminder of the
continuing foolishness of humanity — our leaders offer us the illusion of
security if we build yet another weapons system… We are offering an
alternative…”
Daryl Yoder-Bontrager, member of Community Mennonite Church, Harrisonburg,
Va., read a press statement
to a group assembled in front of the Internal Revenue Service building in
Staunton, Va. Approximately
30 “Christians for Peace” gathered for an unusual
public witness.
A festive atmosphere prevailed as three clowns danced their way among the
people and released five symbolic black helium-filled balloons. During the
service, they sporadically snipped the ribbons of other balloons tied to the
arms of the worshipers — lofting high into the bright sky, over $300 tied to
about 75 multicolored balloons.
Each balloon carried a five or ten dollar bill along with a signed and
addressed note from a participant who had withheld the money from his or her
federal income taxes. Over 15 members of Christians for Peace from the
Harrisonburg area contributed the symbolic cash.
The notes, written by Wendell Ressler, also of Community Mennonite Church,
read:
“About 60 percent of your income tax money this year will be used to pay for
our government’s military program. Because we are Christians who are trying to
follow the peaceful way of Jesus, we cannot support this country’s military
build-up. Instead we have chosen to waste our money in a more constructive
way.
“On we remember the
crucifixion of Jesus Christ each time one nation or individual inflicts
violence on another. On we release our money into the wind — it is not as foolish an act as
depending on weapons for our security.
“We are confident that you, the finder, will be able to use this money in a
better way than the Pentagon would have. Peace be with you![”] Signature and
address followed.
The group had gathered earlier in the day to train for appropriate responses
in case of hecklers and to ponder the message of both the foolishness and the
seriousness of their public act of resistance.
During the service, Ray Gingerich, professor at Eastern Mennonite College,
read from
Psalm 85:8–13 (the vision of a world without weapons),
Amos 5:4–15 (the plea for building a world without weapons),
and Matthew 6:24;
5:43–45;
5:3–9 (strategies for building a world without weapons).
The group, which included several children, carried thought-provoking placards
as they sang for peace. Statements included, “If you work for peace, why pay
for war?” The clowns passed out jelly beans as the balloons rose.
Barry Hart, member of Broad Street Mennonite Church, delivered a spirited
oration to the onlookers which included personnel from over a dozen
TV and radio stations.
Hart reiterated the protest against militarism while emphasizing the spirit
of hope and the sanctity of life.
“We are concerned not only for our personal survival, but for the survival of
our sisters and brothers everywhere,” he said. “We have so long been caught up
in the systematic plotting to destroy other systems that we have missed what
Christ has called us to — serving each other.”
Reporters and group members intermingled for over a half hour after the
service. Local
IRS
officials were not available for comment. Several policemen were on hand,
however, to ensure the peace and to protect the building. A group of young
hecklers had left earlier when the service began.
The idea for the witness was spawned from two Christians for Peace workshops
on war tax resistance by Yoder-Bontrager and Ressler
. Nathan and
Elaine Zook Barge contributed ideas from an earlier experience with a balloon
event in Colorado.
A secular war tax resistance organization, the National War Tax Resistance
Coordinating Committee, formed in . The
Center on Law and Pacifism was an important source of information for war tax
resisters around that time. From the issue:
New U.S. tax
legislation is making it increasingly risky for people to express their
opposition to war by refusing to pay their taxes, but more people are doing so
anyway, according to two Colorado “tax resistance” leaders.
William and Eugenia Durland, who run the Center on Law and Pacifism in
Colorado Springs, said that they have been “in touch” with some 10,000 “war tax
resisters” either through their own newsletter or through direct counseling.
The couple said there are at least twice that many who are refusing to pay
their taxes nationwide.
One indication that the figure is growing, they suggested, is the Internal
Revenue Service’s decision about a year ago to create a task force to combat
tax resisters. Added to that, they said, are new laws aimed specifically at
people who refuse to pay their taxes out of conscience.
The issue brought this news of
congregational resistance from the United Methodist Church:
A United Methodist congregation in New Haven,
Conn., backing their
pastor’s right to refuse paying federal taxes for military use, has declined
to turn over his salary to the Internal Revenue Service. Carl Lundborg, pastor
of First and Summerfield United Methodist Church, has withheld federal income
taxes in , telling the
IRS
his “obligations as a Christian and as a citizen are no longer reconcilable.
The 50 percent of my taxes that support the military I cannot pay.”
After Mr. Lundborg refused to pay
IRS the
$1,200 said to be owed for , the
IRS
served a levy on the Methodist congregations as his employer.
IRS
ordered the church to withhold the pastor’s salary until the amount was
paid. But church members voted on
to reject
IRS’s
demand in support of their pastor.
The General Conference Mennonite Church was still struggling to define its
corporate response to legal demands on one side and employees’ conscientious
objection to military taxation on the other. The Mennonite Church, and its
organ, Gospel Herald, had the luxury of being
spectators to the struggle, though they would have to deal with the same issue
soon enough.
Of more concern as issues are the less routine and less understandable
subjects… ¶ Among these one of the more troubling is the payment of taxes for
military purposes. Both the Council on Faith, Life, and Strategy and the Board
of Congregational Ministries have given attention to this issue and the
chairman of the council has acknowledged that “the Council itself reflected
the different viewpoints and could not recommend a single specific direction
for the church’s response.”
Among the resolutions for consideration by delegates at the General Conference
Mennonite Church Triennial Sessions, to be held
in Bethlehem, Pa., is a
formal action authorizing conference officers to stop withholding taxes from
the salaries of its employees as required by
U.S. law. It also
encourages Canadian Mennonites to obtain relief from the same requirement by
Revenue Canada.
The resolution is the product of more than four years of discussion about the
faithfulness and constitutionality of the church’s collecting taxes for the
state, especially in light of the use of a large portion of that money by the
state for armaments.
In at a special midtriennium conference
in Minneapolis, General Conference delegates voted in favor of urging their
General Board to “use all legal, legislative, and administrative avenues for
achieving a conscientious objector exemption from the legal requirement that
the conference withhold income taxes from the wages of its employees.” At
Estes Park, Colo., in
, a judicial test case on the issue was
okayed by a vote of 1,156 to 353.
, however, all three “avenues”
appear to have closed. A meeting with
IRS
officials in Washington in — the
administrative avenue — failed to produce any results. The World Peace Tax
Fund legislation pending in Congress — the legislative avenue — seems stalled
a long way from gaining enough support to get serious attention. The
preparation of a legal suit against the
IRS,
to be taken to the
U.S. Supreme Court,
if necessary, was put on hold when it appeared, judging from other high court
rulings, that the action would almost surely fail.
The conference’s General Board, therefore, will bring the “Resolution on
Faithful Action Toward Tax Withholding” to Bethlehem
delegates as their recommendation for
resolving the moral dilemma which church officials feel they are facing. If
approved, the resolution would take the conference one small but significant
step into the sphere of divine obedience/civil disobedience.
The Mennonite Church had its own conference, and its own war tax resistance
agenda item to deal with:
More unanimity and like-mindedness prevailed in consideration of three
resolutions before the
MC General
Assembly. In discussing them, reference was repeatedly made once again to
“what the other group is doing.”
This was particularly true in working through a resolution on “Conscientious
Objection to Military Taxes.” By the time the
MC delegates
considered the proposal, they were already aware that the General Conference
had passed by a 2-1 margin a much more radical statement authorizing
conference officers to refuse to serve as tax collectors for the
U.S. government in
cases where individual employees ask that their federal income taxes not be
withheld from their wages. This move caught the attention of the national
media and was being covered by newspapers and television by the time
MC delegates
considered their resolution.
It calls for continued study and discernment of the issue of war taxes,
pledging prayer, study, and caution in relating to the government and its
demands. The resolution asks governments to recognize peace tax funds as
alternates for conscientious objectors and affirms those “who conscientiously
withhold a portion of taxes destined for military use as one way to witness
against militarism.” Delegates passed the resolution after sending it back to
committee once for reworking.
Discussion of these resolutions was mostly affirmation, with little of the
controversy surrounding resolutions to the state characterizing some previous
General Assembly sessions. Not all were comfortable, however, with the
approach. James Hess, Lancaster,
Pa., noted these
resolutions had better be done as individuals rather than as a group since for
him this action violated the principle of the separation of church and state.
Even though we
GCs often
speak of “Old” Mennonites, I have tended to view
MCs
ahead of us in creative theologians and theological
discussion/writing; in preaching evangelists; in putting the church’s
evangelism statements to work; and in comprehensive programs for total
Christian life…
Imagine my surprise when I sensed the caution among
MCs about the
church giving up its role as a tax collector for the government.
This time we
GCs passed
good statements on tax withholding and justice. I pray we will implement them
among us.
The most intensive early discussion in these business sessions came with the
presentation of an issue which had been on the General Conference burner for
several triennials. The problem was precipitated by paid employees of the
General Conference in the
U.S. who asked that
their federal income taxes not be deducted by the conference to allow them to
deal directly with the government on taxes for war.
The discussion I heard came at the end of a long process and so I suppose it
was less impassioned than earlier in the study. The reason for the delay, I
learned, was to provide an opportunity to pursue all possible administrative
and legal avenues as solution to the problem. This had now been done with no
success and so the general board brought a resolution calling for “the
conference officers to test the constitutionality of the withholding
requirements in the United States and to assert the higher claim of Christ’s
law of love, by refusing to serve as tax collectors in cases where individual
employees have asked that their federal income taxes not be withheld from
their wages, in order that they may conscientiously refuse to pay for war
preparations.”
Duane Heffelbower, a Mennonite attorney from California, commented on the
proposal: “We could scarcely devise a softer ‘velvet glove’ to cast at the
feet of the
IRS. But
it shows in a powerful way our corporate willingness to stand with our people.
What might the government do? We don’t know.” But he observed the responses
could vary from a simple levy of the bank accounts to putting conference
officers in jail.
The resolution was discussed in a vigorous and orderly fashion. The arguments
for and against were scarcely new ones. In opposing the resolution John Voth
of Oklahoma noted that Jesus called upon us to love our enemy. Today the
government has become the enemy. Jesus, he observed, called for going the
second mile with a soldier. In support for the resolution, Lois Barrett of
Kansas asserted that in the
U.S. disobeying the
law is a time-honored way of changing the law.
After an hour’s debate, the resolution was brought to a ballot vote and passed
by approximately a 70 percent majority.
In the aftermath of the triennial, the General Conference began implementing
its war tax resistance resolution. On the General Conference stopped withholding taxes from the paychecks
of some resisting employees:
Acting on the basis of a resolution adopted by General Conference delegates at
Bethlehem ,
GC treasurer
Ted W. Stuckey on
issued the first paychecks on which federal income taxes were not withheld.
Seven employees of the denomination’s central offices made the request that
the taxes not be withheld, so that they can remit to the
IRS
personally the amount of federal taxes their consciences will allow. Several
others have indicated that they may be willing to take part in the action at a
later date.
Stuckey said that, beginning with the
paychecks, the seven will have state
and social security taxes deducted but be treated like self-employed persons
as far as federal income taxes are concerned. Under such a classification,
they would be required to submit quarterly estimated tax payments to the
IRS.
The seven plan to make a portion of those quarterly payments but put the
balance — the amount they feel they cannot voluntarily pay because of high
U.S. military
spending — into a special account at General Conference central offices.
Stuckey and general secretary Vern Preheim informed Commissioner Roscoe L.
Egger, Jr., at
IRS
headquarters in Washington by letter of the conference’s action. “We’re trying
to be completely open and above board with them about this matter,” Stuckey
said.
The pay period is the first
opportunity for the conference to implement the “Resolution on Faithful Action
Toward Tax Withholding” adopted by delegates to a churchwide convention in
Bethlehem, Pa., on
.
There, conferees voted 1,128 to 457 to “authorize the conference officers to
test the constitutionality of the withholding requirements in the United
States and to assert the higher claim of Christ’s law of love, by refusing to
serve as tax collectors in cases where individual employees have asked that
their federal income taxes not be withheld from their wages, in order that
they may conscientiously refuse to pay for war preparations.”
The statement concluded with a commitment to “surround with our prayers the
General Conference staff and government officials who will be involved in this
action and all those individuals who refuse in conscience to pay taxes for war
preparations, however costly their witness may be.”
The Bethlehem resolution is the result of
nearly eight years of work on the tax issue, and was passed only after all
legal attempts to solve the problem had been exhausted, including seeking a
simple administrative solution from the
IRS.
The Mennonite Church General Assembly
resolution on Conscientious Objection to Military Taxes includes six
“statements of intention” including praying, rendering to Caesar and to God,
obeying God rather than the state where claims conflict, appealing for legal
recognition of conscientious objection to paying taxes for the military,
affirming both conscientious payment and conscientious nonpayment of taxes for
military use, and pleading for constructive use of resources entrusted by God.
Copies are available from the Mennonite Board of Congregational Ministries…
The edition brought the
news of a war tax resister fighting back against the
IRS’s new
“frivolous filing” penalties:
A Roman Catholic pacifist has brought suit against a law under which the
U.S. Internal
Revenue Service
(IRS)
has fined her $500 for what is considered a “frivolous” request. Alice
Drefchinski, 53, a registered nurse, filed an income tax return for
under which she was to receive a $720
refund. With her return, she enclosed a letter requesting the
IRS to
deduct $1,000 from her taxes — roughly the amount that would go for defense
purposes — and give that money to humanitarian or peace groups.
Although Ms. Drefchinski did not withhold that amount from her taxes, or ask
that the money be refunded to her, the
IRS has
fined her $500 for what is considered to be a “frivolous” request.
While she would not have to pay the money, it would reduce the total of her
refund to $220. The Louisiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU)
has filed suit on Ms. Drefchinski’s behalf in
U.S. District Court
in Lafayette, asking the court to strike down the
law under which the penalty is being levied.
Martha Kregel, executive director of the organization, said the suit asks for
a finding that the law is unconstitutional because it violates due process and
does not contain a definition of “frivolous.”
In other cases, the
IRS has
refunded money directly to taxpayers who made similar requests, and later
assessed them a $500 penalty for making “frivolous” requests.
This description of Drefchinski’s action seems misleading. She took a war tax
deduction on her tax return which reduced the amount she owed; she didn’t
merely append a letter to her return asking the
IRS to
donate some portion of her taxes to charity. In
Drefchinski v. Regan (1984)
the court slapped down multiple arguments made by her attorneys against the
frivolous filing penalty, but concluded:
Many respected Americans have engaged in civil disobedience as a form of
protest against taxation for military spending. Henry David Thoreau, for
example, refused to pay taxes that would contribute to the funding of the
Mexican-American War. See H. Thoreau,
On the Duty of Civil Disobedience (1849). Yet this
mode of protest is not without its costs. Thoreau spent a night in the Concord
jail. Alice Drefchinski must pay a $500 civil penalty. Perhaps she can find
solace in the words written by Thoreau after his confinement: “It costs me
less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State, than it
would to obey. I should feel as if I were worth less in that case.”
Finally, this note suggests that tax resistance was catching on as an idea in
Christian circles as a possible tactic that went beyond war tax resistance:
Evangelical Christian leaders have warned of mass tax-resistance by their
churches unless Congress amends the new Social Security law which requires
religious organizations to pay into the system. The church groups issued the
warnings at a
hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, called in response to a storm of
protest over the provision in the new Social Security rescue package, which
goes into effect .
The revised law repeals the exemption on nonprofit groups, including churches,
from withholding Social Security taxes for their employees.
Forest D. Montgomery, legal counsel to the National Association of
Evangelicals, which represents 38,000 churches, called on Congress “to act to
forestall an inevitable confrontation between church and state.” He added that
many churches will simply “refuse to pay (the tax) on the basis of religious
conviction.”
This is the twenty-fifth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
The debate about war tax resistance continued at a simmer through
, and by the end of the year it was clear that
the Mennonite Church would have to have the same debate about withholding taxes
from its employees’ salaries that had occupied the General Conference Mennonite
Church .
Joel Kauffmann’s “Pontius” comic strip was a regular feature in
Gospel Herald. This example comes from the
issue.
The Center for Discipleship and the Peace Studies Program at Goshen College
will cosponsor a seminar on “Conscientious Objection to Military Taxes” on
Goshen’s campus, .
The program will feature an Internal Revenue Service representative addressing
the legalities of withholding military taxes; discussion of improved
communication between tax withholders, the government, and the church; and a
look at various patriotic and biblical objections raised by nonwithholders.
The purpose of the seminar is not to foster debate on the morality of tax
withholding; rather, persons who are already withholding taxes or who are
seeking additional information on the issue are encouraged to attend. In lieu
of a registration fee, participants will be asked to make a $10 tax-deductible
contribution.
I wonder if you could rope an
IRS
spokesperson into addressing a war tax resistance conference today.
The included an article that
summed up the state of the war tax issue in the Mennonite community. It’s the
same article that appeared in The Mennonite around
the same time and that I reproduced here when I was going through those
archives (see ♇ 4 August 2018 — search
for “Military taxes — continuing agenda in 1984”).
War tax resistance foe D.R. Yoder wrote
a commentary
for the issue in which he
argued that tax resistance was ineffective because the government can just rely
on borrowing or seigniorage if it runs out of tax money, which means ultimately
the costs not paid by war tax resisters just get shifted to other people, which
isn’t very Christian.
One stewardship issue that is seldom brought up, although one of the most
important, is how we use our tax dollars. Becky and I are comfortable in
paying local and state taxes but have come to feel that we cannot pay any of
our federal income taxes, given their use in fueling the arms race. We note
the irony that while the average Mennonite family gives the church $430 a year
for peacemaking it pays the
IRS
$1,500 for its militarism. A 4 percent tithe for the church, and a 10 percent
tithe for the government! Our response is to reduce our taxable income and
refuse to pay anything, choosing instead to use this money for serving the
kingdom. Friends of ours have taken other options such as matching their
giving to the
IRS with
their giving to the church, refusing to pay a percentage of their tax dollars,
enclosing a letter of protest with their payment. We feel that how we use our
money is a crucial test of our loyalties and commitments and must become a
stewardship issue for this generation.
Imagine with us what could happen if we Mennonites were to take the steps outlined in books like Beyond the Rat Race.
Imagine if we were to give as much to the church as we give the IRS, or if we gave our tax dollars to the work of the church, withholding them from military use?
I want to make a few comments… especially on the last part concerning the
average Mennonite family giving “a 4 percent tithe for the church, and a 10
percent tithe for the government.” I cannot understand how he can withhold all
income taxes from Uncle Sam in light of the fact the
U.S. government is
very reasonable in its demands. The government allows us to give 50 percent to
charitable causes without too many restrictions, though there are some.
Thus I ask, until we give 50 percent to charity which the government allows,
who is responsible if it is not spent right? Peters talked about the tithe for
the church. Personally I believe many of us should give much more. Just
because we feel our government does not spend all our tax money right does not
give us the right to withhold all or part of our tax money.
There was a passing mention of war tax resistance at the Bijou Community in
a article:
[Esther (Leatherman)] Kisamore, formerly of Pennsylvania, is a member of a
Christian community, called Bijou House, consisting of 13 persons. There are
four other Mennonites in this house community; the next largest group
represented is Roman Catholic. The group shares economic resources and lives
below the taxable income level as a way of avoiding the payment of war taxes.
The issue contained
a pro-taxpaying op-ed from Harold Hartzler.
Christians should pay taxes gladly, he wrote, citing Romans 13. Taxes help our
terrific government; we shouldn’t try to lower our taxes but should indeed pay
even more than is required; the government should simplify taxes and broaden
the tax base, and should increase taxes even if that makes things “unbearable.”
Alongside that commentary was this one, credited to Call to
Peacemaking:
Praying and paying: a dilemma
The question begins to sound like a cliché, we’ve heard it so often: Can we go
on praying for peace while paying for war?
But the question won’t go away. Every year in the United States we are
reminded of the reality of military preparations when the president presents
the proposed budget to congress. This year the figures reach almost beyond our
imaginations, near a trillion in total spending with more than a third for
war. A military expenditure of that enormity was once associated only with the
waging of all-out war. Now it is only preparation for war, plus minor (?)
interventions here and there.
We only need to reflect for a moment on the consequences of the kind of war
we’re preparing for to know in our hearts that the government is buying us
less security. That’s the purpose of the state? To brandish a nuclear sword
which guarantees that if used it will fulfill the prophecy of Jesus: “They who
take the sword will perish with the sword.”
Between the time the budget is unveiled and when we can no longer delay the
moment of truth with the Internal Revenue Service is usually a little less
than three months. Plenty of time to agonize whether what Caesar is demanding
to support the arms race is really what is due to Caesar.
An increasing number of concerned persons recognize the dilemma of praying and
paying and are seriously trying to decide how to resist. A leaflet, “Stages of
Conscientious Objection to Military Taxes,” by Bill Strong at the Philadelphia
Yearly Meeting of Friends and Linda Schmidt of Mennonite Central Committee
describes what some have done in response to the question of taxes for war.
The leaflet is available from New Call to Peacemaking, Box 1245, Elkhart,
IN…
Milo and Viola Stahl presented bags of groceries to a staff person at the
regional office of the Internal Revenue Service, Staunton,
Va.
Reporter Steve Shenk brought this news in the issue:
As tax season rolls around, taxpayers are faced with many facts and figures
that concern the conscience as well as the wallet. For some Christians payment
of federal income tax — the portion which goes to finance the military — is a
dilemma.
This year a group called Christians for Peace, consisting of largely
Mennonites from the Harrisonburg,
Va., area, gathered at the
regional office of the Internal Revenue Service in Staunton,
Va., on
, 1984. They came to register their concern about the amount of
income tax money which is used for military purposes. Instead of bringing
their normal checks, they came with a truckload of food for the
IRS.
The food was purchased with money that the participants withheld from their
tax payments. “We seek to follow Jesus’ call
to be peacemakers by directing our resources away from the instruments of
death and toward life,” explained Wendell Ressler, one of the organizers of
the event. “We cannot reconcile Jesus’ call to love our enemies with our
government’s call to help pay for their destruction.”
The group began the witness with a short worship service in front of the
IRS
building. There was a short mime skit entitled The Global Garden Deli which
visualized their feelings about paying for military expenditures. The theme
song, “I Am Not Willing to Buy Your Bombs, Sam,” sung to the melody “I Have
Decided to Follow Jesus,” was heard between prayers and testimony of the group
members.
Wendell Ressler then read a short statement of purpose to the small crowd of
onlookers. He explained that this action was really a pledge to reexamine the
effects of the group’s lifestyle on other people. “We do not wish to be
protected if it means others are killed in our names. We gladly pay taxes
which are used to enrich the lives of others, but it is immoral for our
government to play Russian roulette with the future of our planet.”
Christians for Peace members, Milo and Viola Stahl, then entered the
IRS
building to offer their bags of groceries in payment for the military portion
of the income tax. They were cordially received by the representative for the
regional director of the
IRS,
but told that the
IRS
could not accept the bread. When the Milo Stahls asked the representative what
the IRS
would like them to do with the food, the representative replied, “That is your
prerogative, but I cannot accept it.”
The food was then presented to the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank,
Inc., a nonprofit
community organization that distributes 220,000 pounds of food each month to
hungry people in the area. Executive Director Phil Grasty was careful to note
that he did not want to take a political stand on the issue, but he was “happy
to receive the food.” Over 1,000 pounds of canned goods were donated to the
organization.
The group repeatedly tried to explain that their intention was not to harass
the IRS
personnel. Instead their goal was to represent their concern as a Christian
witness. “The reason that I am here,” said Christian for Peace member Nate
Barge, “is that for me it is an act of faith. I am trying to bring evangelism
and social action together.”
The event attracted passersby to stop and watch the demonstration. One of
them, Dave Murphy, a member of the Staunton Christian Fellowship Baptist
Church, said, “I think it is a nice effort on their part to present what they
believe about military spending… after all it is the American way to speak
out. I am particularly pleased that they are giving the food to the Food Bank
where it will do some good.”
Members of the Christians for Peace group tried to donate food to the
IRS,
but it was refused, so they turned the food over to the Blue Ridge Area Food
Bank.
Two years after Seattle Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen’s decision to withhold
half of his federal income taxes, a religious “war tax” movement is growing
rapidly. Its numbers are being swelled both by Hunthausen imitators and by
creative new forms of protest by people who are upset by the nuclear arms race
but reluctant to put themselves outside the law.
According to new Internal Revenue Service figures, the type of protest
popularized by the Seattle archbishop has increased nearly fivefold in the
last three years, while alternative forms of protest, some of them revived
from the Vietnam War era, have also become more frequent. Among the latter
protesters are people who refuse to pay a small, token amount of tax, or
withhold federal excise taxes from their monthly telephone bills. Others file
a return and write “paid under protest” on the check, or file for a refund of
military taxes already paid. Increasing charitable giving to reduce the amount
of income subject to tax, and changing one’s lifestyle to live below a taxable
income level, are also gaining acceptance. Many religious groups, in addition,
are pressing Congress for legislation that would allow “conscientious
objectors” to divert all their taxes to “peaceful” purposes.
The Mennonite Central Committee held its executive committee meeting in
:
Executive Secretary Reg Toews reported that three staff members have requested
that
MCC
no longer withhold the military portion of the federal withholding tax from
their paychecks.
Member Larry Kehler of Winnipeg,
Man., noted that "this is a
very volatile issue in our constituency." It was observed that
MCC
is in a unique position, since it represents a wide coalition of conferences,
who come to this issue with various degrees of intensity. “Just to discuss
this issue is to raise concern in many groups,” Toews said.
The executive committee stated their intention to take seriously the request
from the staff members, as well as constituency concerns. They asked
administrative staff to work on a plan, to be discussed by the committee in
, concerning how this issue should
receive broader testing.
A letter to the editor
from Steven G. Gehman ()
rejected on scriptural grounds the “witnessing” justification of war tax
resistance, but left open the possibility that it was justified on the grounds
of conscientious objection to participation in war:
I have struggled with the war tax issue and have not reached any definite
answer. I cannot feel comfortable knowing that a great portion of my taxes is
devoted to killing or creating the potential to kill, and knowing that Jesus
commands us to have no part in war. But neither am I comfortable with war tax
resistance. There are no records of Jesus opposing taxes to the Roman military
machine. In Romans 13:1–5 Paul states his view that the government bears the
sword as God’s servant. First Peter 2:13 gives us the injunction to submit to
human authority.
I do not think either or both of these passages in themselves yield a final
answer to the war tax issue. They do help to sharpen the questions. If the
government bears the sword as God’s servant, total disarmament cannot be the
goal or the reason for war tax resistance. Neither is the desire for an
effective witness to the government sufficient reason to resist payment since
we are commanded to submit to human authority.
The question of whether or not payment of war taxes is right hinges on whether
or not payment of these taxes constitutes participation in a killing machine
to an extent forbidden by the example and teachings of Jesus. What effect does
current military technology have on our response to this issue?
Michio Ohno, pastor of the Mennonite congregation in Toke outside Tokyo, told
of his pilgrimage which included being a pastor in the United Church before
becoming a Mennonite. He also made an eloquent appeal for a peace stance and
the nonpayment of military taxes.
J. Ward Shank, in a
“Update on the peace movement in the Mennonite Church”,
criticized the modern centrality of anti-war activism among Mennonites,
suggesting that it had displaced more basic Christian themes. “Peace is a fruit
of the gospel, not its basis, or necessarily the heart of it,” he wrote. The
article only mentioned war tax resistance in passing, but of course was
relevant to it. It prompted a great deal of back-and-forth in the letters to
the editor column.
The Mennonite Church’s general board’s
“council on faith, life, and strategy”
met in . It turned out that
the Mennonite Church, like its cousins the General Conference Mennonite Church,
had employees who wanted their church to stop withholding war taxes from their
paychecks. This time around, the Mennonite Church wouldn’t have the luxury
of playing spectator in the debate:
One of the stickier issues arose out of a request from a couple employed by
Mennonite Board of Missions that federal income taxes not be withheld from
their paychecks. They want to stop paying the portion of their taxes that goes
to the military. The council tried to clarify the issue by raising underlying
questions such as “Shall a church perform a function on behalf of the state,
in this instance collecting taxes?” and “Should a church institution place
employees in a position where they do not have the option to follow their
conscience on this issue?” Vigorous discussion led to two recommendations: (1)
That this question might be considered in the forthcoming Conversations on
Faith Ⅱ meeting. (2) That a task force be appointed by the General Board.
I noticed that tax resistance was on the agenda at the General Conference
Dialogue on Faith
in also, but there wasn’t
anything meaty in the article worth reprinting here.
This is the twenty-sixth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
The debate about whether or not to pay war taxes, and about whether Mennonite
institutions should be more accommodating of the requests of their employees
not to have war taxes deducted from their salaries, continued in
, and edged ever closer to the Mennonite
Church itself.
For over ten years I have openly withheld a portion of my federal income taxes
because I’m a conscientious objector to participation in war. This action has
sometimes resulted in face-to-face conversations with Internal Revenue Service
representatives. I have on several occasions written to legislators on issues
of peace and justice or facilitated similar communication by our congregation.
As I see that Christians have contributed to the injustices, my faith compels
me to speak. There are many professing Christians who are in public office who
make government policy. There are many professing Christians whose votes
helped to put them into office and whose tax dollars by the millions pay for
the administration of their policies. Because of this I want to invite my
Christian brothers and sisters to let the Prince of Peace train their
consciences and to take these trained consciences to work whether in the
private or public sector.
The board discussed a request by several staff members that
MCC
not withhold their income taxes, to allow them to withhold a portion of their
taxes as a protest of the dollars used for military purposes.
They agreed that the executive committee should appoint a task group to
consult broadly within the
MCC
constituency to review historical positions on this matter, to examine
alternative responses, and to bring a recommendation to the executive
committee and annual meeting on alternative courses of action.
This approach “moves from a simple decision of whether
MCC
should withhold taxes to stepping back and reflecting on the overall situation
before recommending any one solution for the
MCC
board to accept or reject,” it was said.
Members noted that the Mennonite Church and the Conference of Mennonites in
Canada are studying this issue, that the General Conference Mennonite Church
has completed such a study, and that efforts will be made to learn from those
studies.
John and Sandy Drescher Lehman: war tax resisters who work for
MBM
Friday evening — Case Study 3: Conscientious objection to
military taxes — a case presentation, by John and Sandra Drescher Lehman and
Paul Gingrich. — A panel— James R. Hess, Stephen Dintaman, and Bob
Detweiler.
The other case was conscientious objection to military taxes. John and Sandy
Drescher Lehman of Richmond,
Va., told how they followed
their conscience and decided a few years ago to withhold the part of their
income taxes that they figure goes for the military.
The complication now, though, is that they have become employees of Mennonite
Board of Missions in their role as codirectors of the Richmond Discipleship
Voluntary Service program. “What should an institution do when its employees
ask that we stop withholding taxes from their paychecks?” asked
MBM
president Paul Gingrich.
A panel of four attempted to answer the question, including Robert Hull, a
soldier-turned-tax-resister who is peace and justice secretary of the General
Conference Mennonite Church. He explained how his denomination, with the
instruction of its members, is now breaking the law by not withholding taxes
from the paychecks of seven of its employees who have requested that.
The tensest moment of the conference came when James Hess, a Lancaster
Conference bishop who served on the war taxes panel, was asked whether he
would have paid all his taxes in Nazi Germany even though some of it went to
kill six million Jews. He hinted that the Jews may have brought judgment on
themselves for their crucifixion of Jesus. This caused a minor uproar and led
to a public apology the next morning by Hess. He said that his statement was
speculative, trying to defend the sovereignty of God, and quoted from Jacques
Ellul that everything man does is within the global plan of God.
Energetic war tax resistance foe D.R. Yoder couldn’t stand to see his position
dragged through the mud like this, so he responded in
a letter to the editor:
I would not in any way seek to defend the position reportedly taken by James
Hess during the recent Conversations on Faith Ⅱ linking the Jewish Holocaust
with Christ’s crucifixion… Such notions are the misguided, though not
necessarily unnatural, projections of his fundamentalism.
It is hardly fair, however, that the person who posed what seems the quite
irresponsible as well as irrelevant question which provoked Hess’s intemperate
response is not also identified in the report. For this questioner should be
asked whether he/she paid (or would have paid) taxes to the United States or
Canada during World War Ⅱ.
If the questioner would not have paid, given the assumptions of tax resistance
theory, would not he/she also have been guilty of contributing to the
prolongation of Nazi atrocities against the Jews and others, just as he/she
charges a taxpaying German citizen Hess would have been?
If, on the other hand, the questioner would have paid his/her federal taxes,
again given the assumptions of tax resistant theory, wouldn’t that be
embracing the “just” war position? For how else is the “financing” of one set
of military activity, but refusing to “finance” another, to be interpreted?
We Mennonites are already rushing pell-mell along the broad way, having
sanctified “just” resistance, “just” legal suits, “just” civil disruption, and
even the “just” destruction of public and private property. It doesn’t take a
very astute reading of the winds a-blowing to expect conferences in the very
near future to consider the inherent “justice” of “defensive” wars and of wars
of “liberation.”
War tax resisters Ray and Wilma Gingerich shared their letter to the
IRS
in the issue:
Here are excerpts of a letter we sent to our regional Internal Revenue Service
officer recently. An ongoing conviction of ours is that our most significant
witness in the political-ethical arena is to the church itself. This is a
matter of policy in our local “Christians for Peace” organization. Whenever we
plan an “action,” we do it deliberately with the church “looking over our
shoulders.”
Dear Mr. Smith:
According to your records we now owe the
IRS
$1491.92 in accumulated taxes, interest, and penalties for the fiscal years
of . What you fail to
recognize is:
That the monies withheld represent the military portion of our income
taxes. (We have not withheld veterans’ benefits.)
That the amounts withheld have already been paid to church institutions
engaged in nonviolent justice-and-peace activities. (We are not seeking
to evade carrying our fair share of the public burden for a peaceable and
life-giving society.)
That we are acting out of our religious convictions fostered in the
tradition of the historic peace witness of the Mennonite Church.
You are asking us to do what in good faith we cannot do — to violate our
consciences and our understanding of obedience to Jesus Christ by paying for
murder.
I, Wilma, am a nurse dedicated to making lives whole, not to destroying them.
I find preparation to kill and destroy abhorrent and inconsistent with what
my whole life as a mother, as a nurse, as a human being, as a follower of
Jesus Christ is about.
I, Ray, am a professor of church history and ethics. In my teaching and in
everyday life I seek to underscore that if we are to become persons and
create communities of noble character and life-giving quality, we must live
lives consistent with our beliefs.
To you as a law-enforcer, and to our congressmen and senators as law-makers,
we ask: What is being done to our people and to our nation by enforcing the
practice of violence upon those whose conscience and religious convictions
are opposed to violence? Why do you insist that pacifist citizens act
contrary to their conscience by coercing them to pay for weapons of death?
Would it not be a healthier, stronger nation if these people were granted
freedom of religion and allowed to practice economic nonviolence by
channeling their funds into constructive, nonviolent, humanitarian aid?
To Mennonites war is murder. For Mennonites, and for all Christians who take
seriously the lordship of Jesus in their daily living, there is no government
that can override the teachings and example of Jesus Christ. For Mennonites,
therefore, and for all pacifist Christians, the payment of military taxes has
always posed a dilemma. Some, psychically numbed by continued
rationalization, comply with the state’s demands for death money. Others
choose the way of noncompliance, following the example of Jesus Christ that
leads to persecution — military tax penalties, confiscation of property, and
imprisonment.
Finally, Mr. Smith, allow us to address you personally. What role will you
have in all of this? All of us are in the system. And all of us are morally
obligated to say “no” to death and “yes” to life. You undoubtedly have
thought about these questions many times. We would count it a privilege to
meet with you to discuss these grave matters in a more personal way.
There were some letters to the editor
in response to this wave of articles on the topic. Joe Cross wrote that he was
generally against war tax resistance, but didn’t say anything particularly
notable. Curt Ashburn didn’t care for the put-down of taxpayers in the
Gingeriches’ letter (“psychically numbed by continued rationalization”) and
felt that they should keep such “witness” in the family rather than dragging
IRS
agents into it. He also asked if the Gingeriches refused to pay taxes to
support state-funded abortion, police violence, capital punishment, and so
forth or if they thought war was somehow special?
Exploring new territory in religious opposition to nuclear arms, a number of
major religious denominations have begun to contemplate whether they should
throw their support behind the growing movement to resist payment of taxes in
protest of the arms race. While increasing numbers of individuals within the
churches have joined the ranks of “war tax” resisters, only a handful of
denominations have encouraged or lent support to such resistance. However, as
peace activists within the churches have demanded tougher antiwar stands at
the highest church levels, denominations have begun to wrestle with the
biblical, theological, and historical questions raised by war tax resistance.
The churches are using the examination as a basis for deciding whether to
take, as corporate bodies, any of a variety of actions — both legal and
illegal — in support of the movement. What is moving churches is the growing
realization that they have been “praying for peace while paying for war,” said
Marian Franz, a Mennonite who is executive director of the Washington-based
National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund. “For many people, the arms race has
just gone too far. And they’re saying, ‘Oh my God, I’m involved in it.’ ” While
several mainline denominations have begun to study the issue, the strongest
support for war tax resistance has come from the historic peace churches,
particularly Quaker and Mennonite bodies. In an unprecedented move, the
60,000-member General Conference Mennonite Church voted, in
, not to withhold federal taxes
from the paychecks of employees who are tax refusers. This is punishable by
fines and imprisonment.
Seminars on singleness and sexuality, marriage and sexuality, and silent
devotions were also well attended, indicating a rising concern among
Mennonites for personal growth and self-understanding. On the other hand,
seminars on such topics as war taxes, Central America, and church-state
relations received relatively less attention.
I heard that the conference moderator gave only six minutes of floor time to
deal with the question of the church withholding federal income tax from the
paychecks of church workers who conscientiously resist war taxes.
Perhaps to some, war tax resistance is more personally uncomfortable than
homosexuality! Remember that for any government to exploit and massacre, two
things are required from the majority of its citizens — silence and paying
taxes.
The Rhodes family (left to right): Carmen, Leanna, Rebekah, Philip, James,
Anita, Candice, and Martin.
Praying for peace while paying for war? It’s an irony that Ray and Wilma
Gingerich and James and Leanna Rhodes of the Harrisonburg, Virginia, area
refuse to accept.
Ray and Wilma are in their early 50s. He teaches theology and ethics at
Eastern Mennonite College; she is completing a master’s degree in community
health nursing at the University of Virginia and works part time at Virginia
Mennonite Home. Their four sons of college age or older no longer live at
home. One might think it’s time to slow down, settle in, go with the flow.
Not so. The Gingerichs are wrestling with an issue they believe is
increasingly urgent for Christians — how to respond to the fact that over 50
percent of all income tax monies go to pay for past and present wars and to
prepare for future wars. As one response, they began in
to withhold the portion of their federal
income tax that pays for war.
“We deduct an estimated amount for veterans’ benefits, then send a check for
the amount we are withholding to Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section or
some other church agency,” Ray explained. “We don’t try to hide anything. The
Internal Revenue Service receives a letter that outlines our position along
with a photocopy of the check being sent to the church agency.”
For the past three years, the couple has also withheld the federal excise tax
from their monthly telephone statement. This tax began during the Vietnam War
as a “quick source of revenue” for that conflict, Ray pointed out.
Slightly different tack.
Several miles southwest of Gingerich’s Harrisonburg home, in the rolling
countryside of western Rockingham County near Dayton, James and Leanna Rhodes
are taking a slightly different tack to the military tax issue.
The couple, in their mid-30s, is making a conscious effort to live at a
nontaxable income level. For them, it means trying to raise their family of
six children on $12,000–$13,000 a year.
It’s easier said than done, the couple admitted, but several things are in
their favor.
The family rents the large frame house where they’re living. They care for
dairy heifers and beef cattle for their landlord. The old station wagon they
drive is registered in Leanna’s mother’s name so the
IRS
can’t put a lien on it.
James works for his brother in a new and used farm machinery business. Leanna,
a nurse, works on and off for Homecall, a local home health care agency.
The family has no accessible bank account or other personal property that the
government could claim to satisfy unpaid military taxes. This leaves the
IRS
only one option — to go after Rhodeses themselves.
Rhodeses have refused to pay the portion of their federal income tax for
military purposes for three years in which they earned slightly over their
nontaxable limit. They have been audited and warned of collection procedures,
but nothing has come of it.
Like Gingerichs, Rhodeses refuse to pay the federal excise tax portion of
their monthly phone bill.
Acquiring peace convictions.
The families didn’t acquire their peace convictions overnight or in isolation.
Gingerichs point to a stint of mission work in Luxembourg,
, as a time when they were
confronted with the realities of war.
“We heard stories and saw photos from Vietnam that never made it into the
North American press,” Ray recalled. “We also met people who lived through the
experiences of Nazi Germany and realized that much of what happened in World
War Ⅱ was largely the result of good people following orders.”
In Gingerich enrolled at Goshen Biblical
Seminary, where he was challenged by the teachings of John Howard Yoder, a tax
resister himself. When the family moved to Nashville, Tennessee, for Ray to
pursue a doctorate at Vanderbilt University, the couple began attending a
United Methodist church that was deeply involved in urban ministry.
“I got my theology at Goshen Seminary but we saw how it could be lived out at
that church in Nashville,” Ray said. “Our time there made us realize that
peacemaking is a Christian mandate — not just a Mennonite ideology!”
Family peace initiatives have not been restricted to Ray and Wilma. When
President Jimmy Carter reinstated the military draft in
, sons Andre and Pierre both decided not to
register.
“Here’s a case of children and parents teaching each other,” Wilma said. “We
had been through a lot of painful and joyful growth experiences together. To
them, not to register was the logical way to live out the convictions we
shared.
“As the cost for not paying our military taxes increased we could only move
ahead. To do otherwise would have been a betrayal of our sons and their
convictions.”
More than lip service.
Although James and Leanna had long felt a commitment to blend personal faith
and active social concern, their awareness of the need to give more than lip
service to their beliefs was heightened during
when they helped to start a
Mennonite church in San Francisco.
In that setting James got involved with a number of peace causes and groups,
including counseling military personnel who wanted to claim conscientious
objector status.
“That was a fantastic experience,” James said of their time in the Bay Area.
“I was impressed by the aggressive and committed efforts of many peace
activists, even though many may have acted from purely humanitarian motives.”
Both couples are quick to draw on their understanding of Jesus’ teachings and
example to support their actions.
“The gospel addresses our relationship to other human beings,” Ray said.
“Salvation is a personal response but it is also communal. It means
‘wholemaking.’ War and preparation for war is the epitome of death and
destruction.”
“I hold to an evangelical faith that includes the message of peace and
nonresistance,” James added. “I believe that Jesus can save us from
militarism, hateful attitudes, and a spirit of revenge in the same way he
delivers us from other sins.”
“Our church has failed to see the logical progression from the conscientious
objector stance and Mennonites’ refusal to buy war bonds in
to the war tax resistance stance
of ,” Ray stated.
Added Wilma: “Our peace witness dare not be limited to nonconscription. Why
put most of the burden on 18-to-20-year-olds to take a
CO stand
while we middle-aged men and women go on paying for war? At the same time we
expect our young people to believe that participation in war is wrong.”
Stance is costly.
Both Gingerichs and Rhodeses have paid a price for their stance.
For the Gingerich family, it has included repeated threats from the Selective
Service System and a lien placed on all their personal property.
James Rhodes earned tuition money to attend Eastern Mennonite College and
Seminary by working as an artificial inseminator for dairy farms up and down
the Shenandoah Valley. He later lost that job as a result of local pressure,
but he “feels no animosity” toward those who called for his ouster.
James noted that the harshest criticism has come from other Mennonites at a
time when interest in Christian peacemaking and nonresistance is gaining
momentum in a number of mainline denominations.
Both couples indicated they have had “valuable and redemptive” talks with
IRS
officials. According to James, these encounters “allow us to move from systems
to individuals and open the door to exchange viewpoints.”
“A certain amount of understanding has developed,” he added. “The
IRS
people seem to empathize with our position and apparently don’t know what to
do with us.”
Gingerichs have journeyed to Charlottesville, Virginia, to meet with
IRS
officials and have encountered “extremely personable people… there’s a feeling
of mutual respect.”
The two families commend each other’s positions, but cited the need for other
people who are involved in varied forms of tax resistance to “become more
visible.” They are active in a local “Christians for Peace” group that has
about a dozen members.
“I often feel like we are pretty much going it alone,” said Wilma. “We long
for the day when the focus shifts from our having to defend our position to
the real question of how pacifist Mennonite Christians can go on paying for
war and claim to be followers of Christ. We need greater accountability to
each other in the church.”
“There’s a need to develop an open forum and network for people who are at
different places on the war tax issue to get together and learn from and
encourage each other,” Ray said. Added Leanna: “I would feel a lot more secure
in our position if we knew for certain that a dozen Mennonites in this
community would be willing to take a public stand with us if at some point
we’d be taken to court.”
The couples emphasized that their methods of war tax resistance are not the
only valid approaches, and both expressed a desire for more dialogue and sense
of solidarity with the larger Mennonite Church.
Whatever course one pursues for the cause of peace, it is important to do it
“with a sense of joy,” Ray noted. “Lose your sense of exuberance and it
becomes an overwhelming burden. At that point one must back off to gain fresh
perspective.”
Witness will continue. Ray and Wilma expect to continue withholding that
percentage of their federal income taxes that goes for direct military
purposes and to continue talking and working with individuals and within their
professions to keep the issue alive.
James and Leanna, meanwhile, “feel comfortable” with their simple living
approach, recognizing that it doesn’t allow them to confront government
officials and others as directly as Gingerichs have.
“When our children get older, we’ll need to adjust our strategy,” James said.
“For now, our fear of what could happen to us has gone from near paranoia to a
real sense of peace and freedom.
“Our response, however small, is at least a symbolic effort to say ‘no,’ to
refuse to contribute toward the ultimate destruction of God’s people and his
beautiful creation.”
“Paying a Price for Peace”… is one of the most encouraging articles you’ve
published recently. It is encouraging to see two families who take their faith
in Jesus Christ very seriously. In my mind, they are acting out the very core
of the gospel message to love, to be peacemakers, and — above all — to be
obedient.
On the other hand the article can cause one to be depressed because of the
lack of support and criticisms Rhodeses and Gingerichs have received from
fellow Mennonites. Mennonites, of all people, should be cheering these
families on, even if they are not in complete agreement with their tax
witness.
Joyce and I have also withheld portions of our federal income tax payment,
making it necessary for the Internal Revenue Service to put liens on our
checking account. It is a lonely feeling. To me, any action that lessens
another human being, lessens me. It is sin for me to sit in the safety of a
protected home and claim no responsibility for what my money buys. To tell
someone we love them and apologize for the fact that nearly half our tax
dollar is being spent in preparation to kill them, is the ultimate lie and
irony. I cannot love you if I am preparing to kill you.
On the other hand, Harry Shenk
wasn’t as thrilled.
He started off with the traditional Render-unto-Caesar line that Jesus had
never discouraged paying taxes to militaristic Rome, and then ended on this
curious note:
Jesus never challenged the state on these practices, nor did he indicate that
paying taxes implied responsibility for these heinous crimes.
I don’t think Jesus paid any war tax. I think he probably lived below a
taxable level, and I affirm anyone who chooses this path. I also pay no war
tax. Our tax checks are not divided into portions by the Internal Revenue
Service, but are thrown together into a central fund, against which huge
government checks are drawn. I simply decide in my heart which huge government
check I want my money to be a part of. For me, it’s food stamps and interstate
highways.
The former moderator of the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), Lord MacLeod of
Fuinary, has called for the creation of a peace army committed to withholding
the 13 percent of income taxes which the British government spends on defense.
MacLeod hopes such an army will be able to persuade the government to allow
people to give an equivalent amount of their taxes to starving countries
instead. Even if the government refuses to go along with the idea, he said,
taxpayers should still withhold the money and spend it on famine relief.
War, MacLeod said, is no longer “a disciplined conflict between nations”;
instead it has become “mutual mass murder of women and children between
hemispheres. The church must go radical about war.”
The Mennonite Central Committee held
an executive committee meeting
in and shot down the
proposal to stop withholding war taxes from the paychecks of objecting
employees:
The committee also heard a report from a task force established after several
staff members asked
MCC
not to withhold their federal income taxes. This was to allow them to keep a
portion of their taxes as a protest of taxes used for military purposes.
Committee member Phil Rich reported that the task force had met with leaders
from eight Mennonite denominations over the past year to seek counsel on how
to respond to the tax-withholding issue. None of the denominations counseled
MCC
to honor the staff members’ request.
The Executive Committee voted 7-1, with three abstentions, to accept the task
force’s recommendation that the staff members’ request be denied. The
recommendation will go to the
MCC
annual meeting for final action.
Staff member H.A. Penner expressed appreciation for
MCC’s
serious attention to the issue, but asked if the process might be only half
done. “Have we listened to persons on the other end of our bombs and our guns?
Are we listening to the church in Central America, the Philippines, and South
Africa? What would they say?”
This is the twenty-seventh in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
From the issue:
Dutch Mennonite stages arms protest in his living room.
Dutch Mennonite theologian H.B. Kossen (standing, left) had a golden
opportunity to explain his views on nuclear weapons to the media recently
when a bailiff came to collect taxes he had withheld in protest against the
placing of American cruise missiles in Europe. The bailiff collected the
money by holding an auction at the Kossen apartment in Amsterdam.
Kossen and his supporters, including politicians and church leaders, used the
event to hold a press conference and communion service. Over 70 of the
supporters announced they would also begin withholding a symbolic portion of
their taxes.
Kossen, who was one of the main speakers at the
Mennonite World Conference assembly in
Wichita, Kans., teaches at the
University of Amsterdam and at the Mennonite seminary on the same campus.
His protest is part of a growing peace movement among Mennonites and others
in the Netherlands. It is estimated that one fifth of all the Dutch people
have participated in street demonstrations against the cruise missiles.
There was also lively and extended discussion about a report from the Tax
Withholding Task Force. This group had talked to representatives of
MCC’s
supporting denominations about whether
MCC
should honor the requests of four employees that it no longer continue to
forward to the government the military portion of their withheld federal
income taxes.
Phil Rich, who chaired the task force, reported that while there was much soul
searching and serious attention given to the request, none of the
denominations were ready to counsel
MCC
to honor the request for institutional involvement in illegal non-withholding.
Four board members [out of 37] voted to support the request of the four staff
persons. “Our history tells us that actions of minority people like this” lead
us to greater faithfulness, said Larry Kehler.
But the majority voted with Vice-Chairman Ross Nigh, who said, “We are bound
by the process we have begun. We went to the conferences who own
MCC
and without exception they recommended that
MCC
not honor the request of staff.”
The (U.S.) Peace
Section tried to soften the blow ():
Once again it is tax filing time. For those who object to their tax dollars
being used to fund the military, this is an agonizing time.
To help such people, Mennonite Central Committee
U.S. Peace Section
has just completed an information packet on military tax opposition, and
designated an alternative fund for those wishing to channel a portion of their
tax dollars to a peaceful purpose.
The free information packet includes descriptions of varying theological
positions on the war-tax issue, the federal
budget allocation of funds, a discussion of options available for war-tax
opposition, and information on Internal Revenue Service action as a result of
tax resistance.
The alternative fund will channel tax dollars to victims of political violence
in Guatemala. Human-rights abuses are again increasing in that Central
American country.
To obtain the information packet and more details on the alternative fund,
interested people should contact
MCC
U.S. Peace Section…
A modest proposal: Let the Christians of the world resolve to give more of
their wealth to God than to Caesar’s armies.
For those who consider tax resistance incompatible with their interpretation
of Scripture, we would suggest a strict observance of the biblical injunction
to tithe. Every year Christians, like other citizens, pay their federal taxes.
For most people, these taxes are deducted from their paychecks automatically,
so that the cash flow into the government coffers is regular and abundant.
While some may be disquieted by the fact that 57 percent of their taxes goes
to the military, most will remember the verse “Render unto Caesar…” and make
sure Caesar is paid.
Why is it, then, that the Mennonite Church cannot “Render unto God…” with
equal ease? The Bible, in fact, goes into considerable detail about how to
give our money to God, even giving us the standard of a 10 percent tithe. Yet
we are inexcusably lax in practicing this biblical injunction.
By recent estimates at the Ames (Iowa) Assembly of the Mennonite Church,
Mennonites contributed between 5 and 6 percent of their incomes to the church.
Can we rightfully claim that we pay our federal taxes because the Bible tells
us to, while failing to pay our tithe? Surely if being biblical were our
honest intention, we would make absolutely certain that God’s tax (the tithe)
was paid in full. What is God to think of us?
According to the Center for Defense Information, an average
U.S. family of
four, earning $25,000 a year, would normally pay $2,064 — or 8 percent of
their income to the military. Thus it appears likely that Mennonites pay more
to Caesar’s armies than to the church.
We think it is time to correct this situation. Each congregation should
appoint a tax collector whose duty it must be to collect 10 percent of each
member’s income every month. Provision should also be made to collect back
tithes and accumulated interest fees from the date of membership to the
present. Those who find it hard to pay could simply borrow from their federal
tax payments.
Certainly God must be honored with our tithes. If that means Internal Revenue
Service received only 50 to 60 percent of what is owed, perhaps we could
discuss the problem sometime during a Mennonite Church assembly.
On another matter, the committee struggled with the issues posed by
MCC
employees whose request not to have income taxes withheld was rejected after
long debate at the
MCC
annual meeting in . It was
decided at that time that, despite this decision,
MCC
should continue to affirm the integrity of those objecting to war taxes and
establish a committee that would study and create broader awareness of the
impact of militarism on refugees, hunger, and development.
But the mandate of that group, which is to begin meeting in
, was not clearly defined. Executive
Committee chairman Elmer Neufeld said there seems to be a “strong expectation”
from some that the special committee will continue to work specifically on the
taxwithholding issue.
Tax resisters give money to needy causes.
Ten Mennonites, Catholics, and Brethren gathered in front of the courthouse
in Kalamazoo, Mich., on
to voice their opposition to military spending. Instead of paying the
Internal Revenue Service the portion of their income taxes they claimed would
go into the U.S.
defense budget, they chose instead to give their combined withholdings
totaling $1,600 to five local social-service agencies.
Accompanied by guitar, the protesters sang “Peace” and “Down by the
Riverside." They then made personal statements and mailed their tax returns.
Winfred Stoltzfus (back to camera) declared that the taking of life violated
his religious beliefs and his medical training. “As medical students we are
taught to save life,” he said. “I cannot in good conscience continue to
voluntarily support and pay the federal taxes budgeted for war and death.”
Ellen Kinsenger-Roihi of Center City Housing (third from right) and Marcia
Jackson of Loaves and Fishes (extreme right) were present to receive checks
for their agencies. Three other checks were mailed during the demonstration
to Habitat for Humanity, Kalamazoo Diaeonal Conference, and Kalamazoo Youth
Ministry.
Flanking the banner are four of the tax resisters (left to right): Deanna
Brown, Terry Ciszek, Joanne Lehman, and Andrew Lehman.
Chicagoans protest “contra” aid with “die-in.”
Eight Chicago area Mennonites participated in a “die-in" and street witness
at the post office in Chicago on
to demonstrate their opposition to President Ronald Reagan’s request for $100
million in U.S.
aid to the “contra” rebels in Nicaragua. Here a protester hands a flower to a
police officer before being forcibly removed!
Kris Chupp and Dorothy Friesen joined 25 others who entered the post office
and dropped to the ground one by one to dramatize the reality faced by
Nicaraguans daily as a result of contra raids on that country. Orlando
Redekop placed flowers on the “dead” and told the people mailing their tax
forms the day before the deadline that their taxes are used to kill
Nicaraguans.
Other Mennonites joined the 300 demonstrators outside the post office who put
up posters depicting a bloody hand on a tax form.
No arrests were made. The “dead” were dragged from the building and heaped
outside the door. “I was heartened,” said Friesen, “that the officer accepted
the flower I gave him in the name of the dead women and children of
Nicaragua.”
The Mennonite participants are part of the National Pledge of Resistance
movement, whose members have committed themselves to resist
U.S. military
escalation in Central America.
Max E. Thierry gave some thought to the war tax resistance question in the
issue:
My first contact with the income tax issue was at Bethlehem
, where a part of the Mennonite Church decided
it wasn’t going to collect taxes for the government. I admired that position.
In I began to study economics, and it led to
the income tax. I have been studying the income tax issue for a year now and
have quit paying income tax or filing tax forms on moral and legal bases.
Mennonites are famous for nonresistance. I have come to believe that it’s easy
to say we’re nonresistant and we want peace throughout the world and at home.
Then we turn around and pay for the very acts we as Christians feel are wrong.
As Christians we say war is wrong, killing is wrong, and that Christ told us
to love our enemies. Is it love when we pay to have our enemies bombed and
killed? Is it love to kill unwanted babies and pay for it with money that we
earn by the fruits of our labor?
I suggest if we pay for it we are just as guilty of the crimes against
humanity as are the ones who actually do it. If a person pays another person
to kill someone he can be charged with murder and sent to jail under our legal
system. I believe God has a much higher standard for his people.
I can no longer pay for murder and justify it by Romans 13 because God has
instituted government. I will obey government if its laws are in harmony with
God’s laws. I will also obey government only if it follows the law that was
laid out for this country in the constitution.
What sets a Christian apart from the world anyway? We don’t act because we
might lose our money and power. It’s purely selfish reasons that we give for
going along. Christ died on the cross for not going along. Disciples were put
in jail for not going along. What is a Christian? One who says he loves his
neighbor and pays to have his enemies killed? I believe not.
The Internal Revenue Service has threatened to prosecute me and has fined me
$500 as a civil penalty (I have refused to pay it). They have tried to audit
me (I will not submit to their assumed authority) and they have threatened to
seize any property I own and levy my wages in payment of alleged taxes. They
will eventually do one or all of the above. Four years ago I had a “net worth”
of $20,000. Today it is around $1,000 as I have sold off most all that I had.
I will never be able to personally “own” a car or house since the
IRS
would take it.
I will lose my $25,000-a-year job as a direct result of my actions. I will
most likely end up in a federal prison for my beliefs in God and country.
The most-asked question is “Why?” My answer is, “Because it’s the right thing
to do.” Christ calls us to obedience and while I do not by any means say that
I am not prone to sin, I try to follow God’s calling in my life. By the
shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross he paid for all our sins, but that
doesn’t give us the right to ignore our sin for personal gain.
Finally, the announced the
availability of a “War Tax Resistance Seminar” video,
featuring speaker Willard Swartley and panelists Kenneth Covelens, Maynard
Shirk, Frank Albrecht (the last two were specifically identified as war tax
resisters).
This is the twenty-eighth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
When I hit in the archives it seemed to me that I started seeing a lot more mentions of how “our tax dollars” were financing this or that government-sponsored horror, but much less followup from there about how such a thing might lead one to resist paying.
Maybe that was seen as an obvious corollary by then, or maybe some people had abandoned the idea of war tax resistance as impractical and had just become resigned to complaining.
It’s hard to tell from the record.
That’s not to say there wasn’t war tax resistance content.
Plenty of it.
The “Taxes for Peace” war tax redirection fund, run by the Mennonite Central Committee’s (U.S.) Peace Section, announced it’s annual drive in the issue.
The fund would be redirecting money to the Lancaster County (Pa.) Peacework Alternatives Project, and announced that they had redirected $4,600 to a project to aid victims of violence in Guatemala the previous year.
A curious story, “The parable of the taxpayers” by John F. Murray appeared in the .
It was a sort of updating of the “parable of the talents” from the Bible.
It included a character who was a war tax resister but the parable chided him for hiding his money away from the tax collector rather than spending it on good churchly stuff.
Perhaps this indicates that this was one stereotype of war tax resisters — as miserly sorts — that was prevalent in Mennonite circles.
The emerging war tax resistance movement in Japan took the offensive in , according to this article:
A Mennonite pastor is among 22 Japanese tax resisters who have sued the government for what they say was an “unconstitutional” collection of their taxes in .
The 22 are all members of Conscientious Objection to Military Tax (COMIT), and 12 of them are Christians — including Michio Ohno, a Mennonite pastor in Tokyo.
The government action involved the seizing of the bank accounts of Ohno and two others.
The 22 charge that Japan’s so-called Self-Defense Forces is a violation of the post-World War Ⅱ constitution, which forbids the country to have an army, navy, and air force.
So, they charge, the collection of taxes for the military is also unconstitutional.
Members of the Mennonite Church in the United States contribute $9 to the federal government for military purposes for every $5 they contribute to the local church for the cause of Christ.
Nine to five is the proportion of military support to local church support.
Nine to five is also a traditional eight-hour workday.
The fruit of our labor is paying for the arms race.
The nine-to-five calculation is based on figures from the current Mennonite Yearbook, p. 190. The contributions given by U.S. Mennonite Church members through the congregational treasury in totaled $57,269,704. This figure does not include individual gifts that were not channeled through the congregation.
The estimated military tax paid by the same people in was $105,800,000.
Stanley Kropf, churchwide agency finance secretary, estimates that the pretax income of Mennonite Church members in was $1,602,600,000. I have calculated a 12 percent tax rate paid on that income, with 55 percent of the taxes going to past and present military costs, including a portion of interest on the federal debt attributable to inflationary military spending.
I believe that these figures are correct within a margin of 5–10 percent.
No great concern?
Maybe it isn’t a matter of great concern.
Some say that the government is responsible for what it does with tax monies.
We are not accountable.
Bernard Offen, a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz, thinks differently.
His letter of war-tax protest came across my desk recently, and I share it as a stimulus to reflection on our war taxes in :
The guards at Auschwitz herded my father to the left and me to the right.
I was a child.
I never saw him again.
He was a good man.
He was loyal, obedient, law-abiding.
He paid his taxes.
He was a Jew.
He paid his taxes.
He died in the concentration camp.
He had paid his taxes.
My father didn’t know he was paying for barbed wire.
For tattoo equipment.
For concrete.
For whips.
For dogs.
For cattle cars.
For Zyklon B gas.
For gas ovens.
For his destruction.
For the destruction of 6,000,000 Jews.
For the destruction of 6,000,000 Jews.
For the destruction, ultimately, of 50,000,000 people in World War Ⅱ.
In Auschwitz I was tattoo #B‒7815. In the United States I am an American citizen, taxpayer #370‒32‒6858. I am paying for a nuclear arms race.
A nuclear arms race that is both homicidal and suicidal.
It could end life for 5,000,000,000 people, five billion Jews.
For now the whole world is Jewish and nuclear devices are the gas ovens for the planet.
There is no longer a selection process such as I experienced at Auschwitz.
We are now one.
I am an American.
I am loyal, obedient, law-abiding.
I am afraid of the Internal Revenue Service.
Who knows what power they have to charge me penalties and interest?
To seize my property?
To imprison me?
After soul-searching and God-wrestling for several years, I have concluded that I am more afraid of what my government may do to me, mine, and the world with the money if I pay it… if I pay it.
I do believe in taxes for health, education, and the welfare of the public.
While I do not agree with all the actions of my government, to go along with the nuclear arms race is suicidal.
It threatens my life.
It threatens the life of my family.
It threatens the world.
I remember my father.
I have learned from Auschwitz.
I will not willingly contribute to the production of nuclear devices.
They are more lethal than the gas Zyklon B, the gas that killed my father and countless others.
I am withholding 25 percent of my tax and forwarding it to a peace tax fund.
Offen gives permission to reproduce or publish his letter and says he may be contacted at Sonoma County Taxes for Peace, Box 563, Santa Rosa, CA 95402.
No simple answer.
What is the answer to the war-tax dilemma?
I offer no simple one.
I simply identify a challenge to our faith which will not go away.
And I think it is helpful to have some idea of how much money, and in what proportion, we are giving to the death machine.
St. Augustine said, “Hope has two sisters: Anger and courage.”
Beautiful women, these, in an age of despair.
Thank you for printing the article by John Stoner, “Nine to Five”… It is good but uncomfortable for us to be reminded of our involvement in military and war-related activity.
I wonder how much longer the Mennonite Church can remain so silent and still carry the distinction of being a peace church.
In a democracy, silence gives consent.
In light of Scripture, our history, and the present reality that Stoner points out, how can we Mennonites give our consent to spending so much for war?
Withholding federal income tax for conscience’ sake is still a lonely and often misunderstood act, even within the church.
True, there are individuals and small segments of the Mennonite Church who have taken positions similar to the Stoners.
But I long and pray for the time when such actions of civil disobedience will be strongly supported and encouraged by the majority of Mennonites.
A war tax redirection ceremony and tax day protest was covered in the issue:
Michigan group gives war-tax money to the poor.
On the income-tax deadline of , a group of 11 people in Kalamazoo, Mich., called “Partners in Peace” gave a public witness to their beliefs in front of the post office.
They mailed their income-tax returns minus the amount they calculate is used for military purposes — 50 percent.
Instead the group gave that amount — which together came to about $5,500 — to five local agencies that assist the needy.
Here Partners for Peace member Karen Small gives a check to Marcia Jackson of Loaves and Fishes.
The group, which includes Mennonites, also conducted a short worship service with singing, prayer, and testimonies by several participants.
Onlookers were given printed statements and pens with the inscription, “If you pray for peace, should you pay for war?”
This is the second year the public witness has been conducted.
Winfred Stoltzfus, a Mennonite doctor who is a member of the group, said he and others are being “harassed” by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, which is seizing bank accounts and portions of their paychecks.
“Even if you are not a war tax resister, you can help those who are,” say a group of Christians who operate the Tax Resisters Penalty Fund.
Based in North Manchester, Ind., it helps resisters when they suffer financial loss through the seizure of penalties and interest by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
The fund, started in as a project of the local chapter of Fellowship of Reconciliation, is currently trying to broaden its base of support because of the increasing number of requests for assistance.
More information is available from the North Manchester Fellowship of Reconciliation…
While war tax resistance seemed mostly a U.S. phenomenon during the Vietnam War era (and this led to some chagrin when Canadian Mennonites felt like they were being dragged into disputes about it), Canadians were also getting in on the act by this time ():
Conscience Canada, a Victoria, B.C.-based organization objecting to Canadian military taxes, held its first national conference recently.
Several participants reported that they sent the military portion of their taxes to Peace Tax Fund — a trust account administered by Conscience Canada which is not approved by the government.
Member of Parliament James Manley told the participants how they could be more effective in lobbying their MPs.
Motions favoring peace tax legislation were introduced in the House of Commons by Manley in and and by MP Simon De Jong in .
Reporting on war-tax resistance in the United States, Robert Hull, a Mennonite who chairs the Washington, D.C.-based National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund, said his group has enlisted 55 representatives and four senators as sponsors of peace tax legislation in the U.S. Congress.
“Conscience Canada is part of a movement in 17 countries, from Finland and Spain to Australia and New Zealand,” said Edith Adamson, the organization’s coordinator.
Study packet on militarism in Canada from Mennonite Central Committee Canada.
It includes pamphlets, articles, and a fact sheet.
The packet helps Canadians struggling to discern a faithful Christian response to militarism, including the issue of whether or not to pay war taxes.
It is available for a suggested donation of $3 from Information Services at MCC Canada…
David Charles wrote a commentary for the issue in which he went on at length about the horror of nuclear war and said “Some have even come to recognize our complicity in the situation through silence and the payment of war taxes.”
And: “Our continued silence to a government that is not merely content to collect tax but is mortgaging the entire country to pursue a ridiculous ambition is conveying a message of acceptance.”
But his suggested response was hilariously pathetic:
We can write on the bottom of our tax returns that our money is to be used to build peace, not more arms.
For an increasing number of Christians the conscription of their taxes for military purposes is becoming a problem of conscience as clear as the conscription of their bodies for military service.
The question will not fade away.
Are the excuses offered by Nazi collaborators or Iran-contra conspirators that someone else is making the decisions that much different than washing our hands of responsibility for how the state uses the resources God has given us?
Challenge and action.
The study suggested by MCC and the militarism resolution — “Growing in Stewardship and Witness in a Militaristic World” — which will be considered by the General Assembly at Purdue arose directly out of the struggle of conscience about war taxes by some members of the church.
The proposed resolution is intended to alert us to the broad scope of this challenge and suggest appropriate actions.
Let us expand our support for proposed Peace Tax Fund legislation in both the United States and Canada, recognizing that legal recognition of conscientious objection to payment of taxes destined for military use will require the same patient persistence which resulted in legal recognition of conscientious objection to military service.
Let us prayerfully examine the practice of church organizations withholding and transmitting income taxes of church employees who themselves are conscientiously unable to pay taxes for military use.
As part of that effort, we will participate in a conference planned for for Mennonite, Brethren, and Quaker employers to share their experiences relating to tax withholding and conscience and to develop a strategy for relief of this ethical dilemma.
Let us continue to support those whose conscience prevents them from paying taxes destined for military use or from registering with the U.S. Selective Service System.
A report from the conference, carried in the issue, carried the ominous quote “Personally, I think the Peace Tax Fund is a way out of this” as a way of excusing why the Mennonite Church seemed to be waffling rather than taking any committed stand:
A statement on “Growing in Stewardship and Witness in a Militaristic World” was approved more quickly.
It offers suggestions to congregations for ways to counter the increasingly pervasive “evil” of militarism in North America and around the world.
Ed Metzler, who presented the statement, said one of the best ways Mennonites can oppose militarism today is by supporting the campaign for “Peace Tax Fund” legislation in both the United States and Canada.
Metzler, who is peace and social concerns secretary at Mennonite Board of Congregational Ministries, said this would permit conscientious objection to war taxes in the same way that Mennonites and others won the right to conscientious objection to war.
He called to the podium the executive director of the campaign in the U.S. — Marian Franz, a Mennonite.
“Conscience is contagious,” she said, “and peace concerns are spreading far beyond the historic peace churches.”
Approval of the statement did not end the discussion on militarism.
Especially after Mennonite Board of Missions president Paul Gingrich reminded the delegates that his agency is still waiting to hear what it is supposed to do about employees who request that taxes not be withheld from their paychecks so that they can resist war taxes.
“I wish this body would act on this,” he said.
Metzler agreed, pointing out that the Mennonite Church General Board “ducked the issue” by calling for a general statement on militarism.
“We wish the issue would go away,” he said, “but it won’t.” Moderator-Elect Lebold defended General Board inaction, noting that the church is deeply divided on the subject.
“Personally, I think the Peace Tax Fund is a way out of this,” he said.
Nondelegate Ray Gingerich, an Eastern Mennonite College professor who is a war tax resister, challenged the notion of having to wait on the government to make legal a matter of conscience.
Many delegates seemed to agree, and by majority vote, they instructed General Board to take immediate action on tax withholding and give a clear answer to MBM and other agencies seeking guidance.
Well, I think so.
It is an odd question for a 53-year-old person because nobody’s asking me to wreak violence on anybody else.
We are all very fortunate to have that little dialogue about paying over the coin to Caesar because otherwise we 53-year-olds, if we thought of being pacifists, would have to think of financing nuclear weapons.
I guess that little dialogue lets us out, or at least in some people’s minds it does.
But I figure that by now the taxes I paid have bought a lot of destructive weaponry, if I am paying my share.
The Church of the Brethren (Anabaptist cousins of the Mennonites) also held their annual conference.
The issue reported:
An agenda item on “taxation for war” prompted little debate, since a study committee said the church has written enough about war-tax resistance, and that it is time for members to study seriously what has been written.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) has publicly asked the forgiveness of an 81-year-old Cincinnati minister who was defrocked by a regional church body 25 years ago for his antiwar activism.
Maurice McCrackin, pastor of the nondenominational Community Church of Cincinnati, was deposed from the ministry by the Cincinnati Presbytery in after he refused to pay the portion of his income taxes that would go for military spending.
Meeting in Biloxi, Miss., the denomination’s highest governing body, the General Assembly, formally confessed error in removing McCrackin from the ministry and endorsed an action taken in by the Presbytery of Cincinnati restoring him to clergy status.
The attempts to get the Mennonite Church to take risks on behalf of war tax resisters got the goat of of Elmer S. Yoder, who wrote the following for the issue — again suggesting the Peace Tax Fund as a way of sidelining the problem:
The concluding appeal by a delegate at Purdue to “respect the individual conscience” in regard to church institutions not withholding “war taxes” failed to address a key question.
The appeal sounded simple and persuasive, on the surface, but it is much more complex and far-reaching.
Whose conscience is to be respected?
The conscience of the individual employee of an institution or the collective conscience of a board of directors, or perhaps even General Assembly?
The corporation is a legal entity and owes its continued existence to statutory provisions.
The centralized management of the corporation can and does express the collective conscience of the institution.
Our major church institutions are incorporated and directed by boards.
The directors have been charged with the optimum operation of the institutions.
The institutions (corporations) are faced with options different from those of an individual in respect to a refusal to pay the tax in question.
An individual refusing to pay what he considers is the war tax would be confronted by an agency of the government.
The result might be the placing of some financial restrictions upon him, or additional legal action, such as seizure of property, or in extreme cases, imprisonment.
Noncompliance by a church corporation would almost certainly result in governmental measures amounting to a substantial loss of freedom.
This loss could well include its legal base to perform the objectives and purposes included in its charter and given by the Mennonite Church.
An individual Christian respecting the conscience of a war-tax resister suffers no detrimental consequences legally.
A trustee of a church institution is in a completely different situation.
By consenting with fellow trustees not to withhold the tax in question, he and the trustees are inviting various restrictions on the institution via legal action.
Legal alternatives of not withholding the war tax have been researched thoroughly by the General Conference Mennonite Church, without finding any legal recourse.
This means that trustees of church institutions would engage in civil disobedience by not withholding from any employee’s salary the part of the tax he protests, but in addition, would push the institution into a morass of legal restrictions and extended court procedures that would severely hamper the operation of the institution or drain its resources through protracted legal fees.
This is not a plea to act only on the basis of potential consequences.
The call to faithfulness supersedes consequences.
But faithfulness in great diversity of understanding, such as the war tax issue and the legal consequences, is difficult to achieve.
It is not in the interests of brotherhood to create or foster an institutional versus individual conflict, but neither is it proper or ethical to evade the issue of an institutional conscience.
In church institutions that conscience is molded by the larger brotherhood and those directly charged for the operation of the institutions — the trustees.
Nearly 100 years ago, the Mennonite Church began forming institutions (corporations) to carry out more effectively its tasks of nurture, education, and evangelism.
The institutions have served well and have contributed in many ways to the mission of the Mennonite Church.
Shall this servant role of the institutions continue?
Trustees of the institutions can, by openly defying the law over an issue on which such a diversity of opinion exists within the Mennonite Church, shackle the institutions, rather than performing as stewards.
Perhaps the time is coming, in the United States, when the church may again need to preach, to teach, and to evangelize without the legal entity of the corporation.
Perhaps there again will be the time for the fabled school with the professor on one end of a log and the student on the other.
The church corporation, which makes possible educating larger numbers, would be conspicuously absent, because of legal ramifications.
But, in my opinion, that time is not yet.
Perhaps, rather than urging a course of action which would eventually eliminate faculty and staff positions in the institutions, the energies and efforts devoted to this should be channeled into making possible a legal alternative, such as the Peace Tax Fund.
Devoting one’s energies to making it possible for larger numbers to step out and take advantage of the Peace Tax Fund certainly would be preferred to potentially reducing the church institutions into ineffectiveness.
The “New Call to Peacemaking” initiative was still active, but seemed to be deemphasizing war tax resistance.
It is not until the penultimate paragraph of this story that war tax issues are mentioned:
Some of New Call’s limited resources do go to renewing the vision within the historic peace churches.
In a conference will be cosponsored with the Quaker War Tax Concerns Committee on the challenge to church organizations from employees requesting their federal taxes not be withheld so they can exercise their conscience in relation to war taxes.
Thank you for sharing Ike Glick’s courageous decision of conscience to resign from a company that might be involved in military contracts ().
All of us in North America are inextricably involved in an economy addicted to huge military expenditures.
Ike’s conscience challenges especially all of us who think that the taxes we pay to build weapons of war are something for which we have no responsibility.
Our stewardship teachings tell us it is God’s money.
How we use that resource surely must be a matter of conscience as much as the way we use our God-given talents in our occupations.
This is the twenty-ninth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
In the Mennonite Church danced right up to the brink of committing to corporate war tax resistance, as other church bodies around them considered their own similar actions.
The traditionalists were increasingly restive, though.
For example, in the issue, a letter to the editor from Robert L. Beiler took the traditional Romans 13 line and then went on to pointedly ask why war tax resisting Mennonites don’t seem to make any noise about taxpayer-funded abortions — and anyway the United States is a great country and we should be happy to pay taxes here.
The issue reported on how another Christian group was dealing with war tax resisters in the fold:
The General Board of Friends United Meeting — a Quaker denomination based in Richmond, Ind. — has adopted a policy of not withholding the federal taxes of employees who are conscientious objectors to paying taxes used for military purposes.
This means the denomination is willing to violate Internal Revenue Service tax regulations in order to support the conscience of its employees.
The policy requires employees who desire to participate in the witness of military tax refusal to first participate in a “clearness process” with their local congregation.
They are encouraged to compute the military percentage of their income tax, using the figures of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and voluntarily deposit that sum in a special denominational account held for that purpose.
The remainder would be submitted to the IRS.
In taking this action.
Friends United Meeting is pursuing a long Quaker tradition of recognizing all outward warfare to be inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
It joins one other denomination in taking this action — the General Conference Mennonite Church.
Friends United Meeting is also seeking legislative remedy through the U.S. Peace Tax Fund bill in Congress.
This legislation would permit tax payers morally opposed to war to have the military part of their taxes allocated to peacemaking.
Leaders of two peace organization talk about military taxes — Julie Garber of Fellowship of Reconciliation and John Stoner of Mennnonite Central Committee U.S. Peace Section.
Representatives of several “traditional peace church” denominations met to try to swap ideas about how to cope with the war tax resistance issue (Paul Schrag reporting):
Praying for peace while paying for war is a contradiction that historic peace churches must oppose by speaking out and taking action, representatives of those churches agreed at a consultation in Richmond, Ind. For some people, war tax resistance — refusing to pay the portion of one’s taxes that goes to the military — is a moral imperative.
Their consciences will not allow them to help pay for machine guns and nuclear bombs.
The question of how church organizations can help their employees follow their consciences — and how to deal with the risks involved for both employees and employers — were the issues that nearly 40 Mennonites, Brethren, and Quakers struggled with at the meeting.
The church leaders, agency representatives, and lawyers affirmed their support for individual military tax resisters and for efforts to seek a legislative solution by working toward passage of the Peace Tax Fund Bill in the U.S. Congress.
They agreed to organize a peace church leadership group to go to Washington sometime in the future to support the peace tax bill and to express concerns about tax withholding.
They also agreed to help each other by filing friend-of-the-court briefs if tax resisters are prosecuted and by sharing the cost of tax resistance penalties, if necessary.
“You may think the world will little note nor long remember what has happened here,” said Marian Franz, a Mennonite who is executive director of the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund.
“But I regard it as a historic meeting.”
People from churches that have policies of breaking the law by not withholding the federal taxes of employees who oppose paying military taxes shared their experiences with people from churches considering adopting such a policy.
The General Conference Mennonite Church and two Quaker groups are in the first category.
The Mennonite Church is in the second.
Mennonite Church leaders, including Executive Secretary James Lapp and Moderator-Elect George Brunk Ⅲ, came to the meeting to explore church policy options on military tax withholding.
The General Assembly of the Mennonite Church asked the General Board to develop a recommendation on the issue for consideration at the next General Assembly in .
“This roots us in a larger movement,” Lapp said of the meeting.
“It gives us ideas and handles about how other people have addressed it.
We don’t have to start from ground zero.”
General Board plans to formulate questions about tax withholding for congregations to discuss.
It will prepare its recommendation based on congregations’ responses.
The meeting, held at Quaker Hill Conference Center, took place in an atmosphere of excitement generated by a gathering of people from different traditions who share a vision.
In the long and lively discussions, participants challenged each other and their churches to recommit themselves to active peacemaking and prophetic witnessing on the war tax issue.
Robert Hull, peace/justice secretary for the General Conference Mennonite Church, said it was frustrating that many members of historic peace churches are not willing to witness against financial participation in preparing for war although they are opposed to physical participation in war.
When a church or organization decides to honor employees’ requests not to withhold their federal income tax, it assumes serious risks.
Any “responsible person” who willfully fails to withhold an employee’s taxes theoretically could be punished with a prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.
An organization could be fined $500,000.
But such penalties have never been imposed on legitimate religious organizations, nor are they likely to be, said two lawyers at the meeting.
The usual Internal Revenue Service response to war tax resistance is to take the amount of tax owed, plus a 5 percent penalty and interest, from the employee’s bank account.
IRS has not taken even this action against the four GC employees who are not having their taxes withheld.
They pay the nonmilitary portion of their taxes themselves and deposit the 53 percent that would have gone to the military in a designated account.
IRS has not touched that account since it was established after GC delegates approved the policy in .
All GC personnel who could be subject to penalties have agreed to accept the risk.
The Friends World Committee for Consultation, which has had a nonwithholding policy , has had tax money seized, plus interest and penalties, from its resisters’ bank accounts.
The Friends United Meeting adopted a nonwithholding policy .
The Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Friends will decide in whether it should have such a policy.
Charles Boyer of the Church of the Brethren said he would use the input from the meeting to work toward helping his denomination develop a policy on tax resistance.
Participants made suggestions for improvements on a draft of “A Manual on Military Tax Withholding for Religious Employers” written by Hull, Linda Coffin of the Friends Committee on War Tax Concerns, and lawyers Peter Goldberger and J.E. McNeil.
The manual is expected to be available .
The consultation was sponsored by the Friends Committee on War Tax Concerns and New Call to Peacemaking.
The latter is a cooperative peace organization of the historic peace churches.
New Call to Peacemaking plans to sponsor a military tax withholding meeting for a wider range of church groups sometime in the future.
Whether or not military tax resistance “works,” participants agreed that people’s moral imperative to follow their consciences must be respected.
“No conscientious objector ever stopped a conflict,” said William Strong, a Quaker representative.
“But they had to explain what they did, and the vision was kept alive, and those ripples — you don’t know where they stop.
The Mennonite Church was playing catch up with their cousins the General Conference Mennonite Church when it came to deciding how to react to employees who were conscientious objectors to military taxation, but now it was their turn to begin the process.
From the issue:
As the result of a General Assembly mandate , Mennonite Church General Board has initiated a plan to consider church agency tax withholding.
The General Assembly action calls for General Board to bring to the assembly a proposal for how the church should respond to questions of conscientious objection to the payment of military taxes and the institutional withholding of the military portion of employees’ income taxes.
Steps in the consideration process, as approved at the board’s meeting, began in with participation in the interdenominational Employers Tax Withholding Consultation in Richmond, Ind. Then a working document, clarifying the issues and enumerating possible responses, will be prepared for General Board study.
Board members will devote a day to the issue prior to their regular meeting.
The discernment process will continue as revised copies of the working document are available for conference and congregational study .
A summary of conference responses will be included in the General Board docket in , when the board will develop a recommendation to be presented for General Assembly action in .
The issue noted that the “first major public event” of the Peace and Justice Center at Stirling Ave. Mennonite Church in Kitchener, Ont. “was a… seminar to explore alternatives to paying taxes for military purposes.”
In a letter to the editor in the issue, Jurgen Brauer wrote that after reading Tolstoy he came to feel that “it is high time that the issue of tax withholding (or redirecting) becomes the major issue of the church.”
The “Taxes for Peace” fund gave its annual update
in the issue.
They’d decided to donate all of the taxes redirected through the fund to the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund , and announced that they’d redirected about $4,000 to “the Lancaster County, Pa., Peacework Alternatives project.”
Poster on war tax resistance from Mennonite Central Committee.
The words on the poster are by John Stoner: “We are war tax resisters because we have discovered some doubt as to what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God, and have decided to give the benefit of the doubt to God.”
It is available from MCC at…
The General Board of the Mennonite Church met in :
Chris Longenecker tells General Board how she decided to ask her employer — Eastern Mennonite Board of Missions — to stop withholding the military portion of her taxes from her wages.
Eastern Board, like other Mennnonite Church institutions, is waiting for guidance on this issue from General Board before it honors a request like this.
Ed Metzler (left) and Jim Lapp lead the General Board discussion on war taxes.
In a decision that will lead to breaking the law if approved by the General Assembly , the General Board of the Mennonite Church has recommended that war taxes not be withheld from the paychecks of denominational employees who request that.
The 32-member board passed the recommendation unanimously, with a few abstentions.
The action, which came during the board’s meeting in Kitchener, Ont., was a long-awaited response to several people at church agencies and schools who, because of conscience, do not want to pay the portion of their taxes — about 50 percent in the United States — that goes to the military.
It was also a response to an impatient General Assembly that instructed General Board to take a stand on the issue.
“This has been an area we have been reluctant to move in,” said General Board executive secretary Jim Lapp in introducing the matter.
Ed Metzler, the denomination’s peace and social concerns secretary, said the main reasons for taking the non-withholding action are to allow individual expressions of conscience and to witness against militarism.
“But is this the best way to witness against militarism?” asked Tim Burkholder of Northwest Conference.
Other board members wondered if the church corporately should break the law to satisfy the consciences of a few individuals.
The board members, meeting at Pioneer Park Christian Fellowship, gathered a day earlier than usual to take up the war tax matter.
Metzler arranged for a variety of speakers to address the subject, including two persons who have requested non-withholding — Chris Longenecker of Eastern Mennonite Board of Missions and Carman Albrecht of Mennonite Central Committee Ontario.
John Stoner, executive secretary of Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Peace Section, delivered a ringing “call for courage” based on the book of Revelation.
“It is unthinkable that John the Revelator would not see, in our time and place, the war tax demands of Western democratic militaristic capitalism as a challenge to our faithfulness to the witness of Jesus,” he said.
Bob Hull, peace/justice secretary for the General Conference Mennonite Church, explained the lengthy process that led to his denomination’s decision to honor requests for non-withholding.
It included a four-year effort to explore all legal channels — legislative, judicial, administrative — for avoiding the payment of war taxes.
Finally, at their convention in Bethlehem, Pa., 72 percent of the GC delegates voted to defy the law — the first denomination to do so.
(Several Quaker groups have since done the same.)
To date, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service has not moved against the GC Church.
In the discussion that followed, several people argued that consistent conscientious objection to war should include a refusal to fight as well as to pay for fighting.
Others wondered why the Mennonite Church — and other denominations — agreed so easily to a law in the U.S. (and earlier in Canada) that required them to withhold taxes from employees’ wages, thus putting the church in the role of tax collector for the government.
For a while it looked like the board members might postpone action on the issue or pass the buck to the 22 conferences of the Mennonite Church.
But Moderator Ralph Lebold reminded them of their instructions from General Assembly, and Dean Swartzendruber of Iowa-Nebraska Conference urged the board to “decide here today.”
In the end, the decision was made after much deliberation and considerable rewriting of the proposed action.
In addition to honoring requests for non-withholding, it includes support for the Peace Tax Fund bill in the U.S. Congress that would provide conscientious objection to war taxes and a call for “serious attention” to the question of the church as tax collector.
The recommendation will now go to the conferences for review.
, General Board will take the responses from the conferences and shape a final recommendation for submission to the General Assembly.
The board members agreed that the recommendation will be introduced in person to the leaders of each conference by a denominational staff person.
Gospel Herald kept readers up on the news of other denominations struggling with the same issue ():
Philadelphia-area Quakers took a historic step recently to aid employees who were opposed to paying taxes for war purposes.
The Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, in its 308th annual session, agreed to withhold but not forward to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service the estimated military portion of its employees’ federal income taxes.
This money will be set aside in a special fund and paid to IRS with interest when there is assurance the money will not go for military spending.
Currently the organization has 42 employees, of which an average of seven are tax resisters at any time.
The decision to establish the set-aside fund for war tax resisters augments the decision to refuse cooperation with IRS levies on salaries of war tax resisters employed by the Yearly Meeting.
The policies could make the group liable for sizable fines and penalties for breaking federal law.
The Yearly Meeting also could incur liability for employees’ unpaid taxes.
And some Mennonite congregations were taking stands on their own (, Cindy Hines Kurfman reporting):
War-tax resistance is an important subject at Lafayette (Ind.) Mennonite Fellowship — important enough that members commit themselves to “support for those who, for reason of conscience, resist ‘war tax’ payment.”
To Ken Nagele, who began refusing to pay a portion of his taxes in , war-tax resistance originally meant not paying “the percentage associated with nuclear weapons.”
He now refuses to pay for “all current and past military spending,” but still pays the portion that benefits veterans in the belief that he is “helping those scarred by killing.”
Nagele uses a Friends Committee on National Legislation document each year to determine how much he will withhold.
This year the figure is 53.1 percent.
The refused portion will be deposited in the Near Eastside Community Federal Credit Union of Indianapolis.
This community-development credit union makes loans to low-income persons and small businesses in an economically depressed portion of the city.
Another member, Mary Ann Zoeller, is refusing to pay war taxes for the first time.
“As a Christian, I knew I could not, in good conscience, support the killing of others,” she says.
“Yet the existing tax laws require me to do just this, by asking me to pay taxes that finance military services.
Following Christ’s teachings of love of his persecutors, even to the loss of life, I have been led to question my support of our military.”
Zoeller sends the war-tax portion to Amnesty International, a human rights organization.
Alternative methods of war-tax resistance are also demonstrated by several families in the Lafayette congregation.
One family, whose income is below the taxable level, has written a letter to their tax commissioner since which explains their belief that paying for war is a sin.
Another couple keeps their payment to a minimum by following the example of their parents; live simply and give a large percentage of income to the church.
A Virginia congregation has decided to officially support its members who refuse to pay the military portion of their taxes.
Community Mennonite Church in Harrisonburg, Va., has 20 members who illegally withhold some of their tax money as an act of conscientious objection to war taxes or are seriously considering it.
“The congregation’s decision grew out of the desire and concern of a few of us that our action be more than the isolated action of individual conscience,” said Orval Gingrich, one of the 20. The congregation is encouraging all its members to include letters of protest with their income tax returns and has notified Internal Revenue Service that it fully supports its members who don’t pay war taxes.
By it was time for another backlash letter to the editor.
Titus Martin hit the predictable Romans 13 notes and warned readers against relying on their consciences when conscience and scripture disagree.
As a compromise he suggested that readers use charitable deductions rather than civil disobedience to lower their taxes.
Even the Presbyterians were getting in on the tax resistance act, according to this news brief:
The document describes obedience to civil authority as normative for Christians but asks the denomination to set up a special fund to support Presbyterians who suffer financial losses because of a stance of resistance.
The paper argues that withholding taxes to protest U.S. military policy is proper under certain circumstances.
Such activists are entitled to emotional support from the church, the paper says.
The IRS went on the offensive against the Philadelphia Yearly meeting, which may have been frightening news for a Mennonite Church which was contemplating taking a similar stand ():
The Internal Revenue Service has filed two suits against a Quaker group in Pennsylvania because the organization has refused to attach the wages of two employees who have withheld part of their income taxes as a conscientious protest against military spending.
The lawsuits against the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends seek $17,000 in connection with federal taxes that were not paid by William Grassie and David Falls.
IRS said it takes such action against the employer of anyone who fails to pay taxes on the ground that salaries are property that can be levied by the government in such cases.
A new resource is available on the war-tax issue for Mennonite Church conferences — and others — that are currently considering whether church institutions should be instructed to not withhold taxes from the wages of employees who express conscientious objection to the military portion of their taxes.
Conferences are to submit their counsel to General Board in preparation for a proposal to General Assembly at Normal .
The resource is a just-published book called Fear God and Honor the Emperor: A Manual on Military Tax Withholding for Religious Employers.
Each purchaser of the book will be on a mailing list to receive future updates on the subject.
The book is available at a special price of $11 from Mennonite Board of Congregational Ministries…
This is the thirtieth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of
the (Old) Mennonite Church.
In the Mennonite Church General Assembly
would hold a long-overdue vote on whether or not to support war tax resistance
as an institution. You’ll have to scroll down to see how that turned out.
A Japanese court has ruled against 22 military tax resisters, including
Mennonite pastor Michio Ohno. The ruling by the Tokyo District Court came
recently after nearly eight years of litigation. The case had its origin after
the bank accounts of Ohno and another person were attached by the government
because they didn’t pay their taxes. For reasons of conscience, the 22 object
to paying the portion of their taxes that is used for military purposes. The
negative ruling does not discourage them, however. “We believe it is this type
of lawsuit which, repeated a thousand times, will open the way to legalize
conscientious objection to military taxation in Japan,” said Ohno.
A “Taxes for Peace” fund is again being set up by Mennonite Central Committee
U.S. Peace Section.
It is for people who withhold war taxes to give money for a peaceful purpose.
It is a symbolic action and not a legal alternative to paying the tax.
’s fund will be divided between National
Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund and Christian Peacemaker Teams. More information
about the fund is available from
MCC
U.S. Peace Section…
As the general assembly loomed, a series of letters to the editor concerning
war tax resistance hit the Gospel Herald pages in
:
Krabill felt that war tax resisters were twisting themselves in knots trying to explain away scriptural passages that on their clear facial reading counseled taxpaying.
Peachey explained why she thought war tax resistance was worth taking seriously (this is the same commentary as appeared in The Mennonite and that I excerpted here).
Nafziger thought that Krabill wasn’t discerning the clear obvious meaning of the bible so much as offering a distorted version of it in order to justify paying war taxes.
Do Mennonites need more time to study the tax withholding issue or more
courage? Will the Mennonite Church be known as a “historic peace church” 50
years from now? These and other questions came to mind as I read “General
Board Makes Cautious Preparation for Normal
”…
General Assembly actions in recent years have repeatedly affirmed tax
resistance, based on Christian conscience, as a valid part of our peace
witness. We see these actions not as liberal trends but rather a needed
return to New Testament teachings: to the life, nonviolent teachings, and
spirit of Jesus and to Anabaptist understandings of church and state
separation, roles, and loyalties.
Today military technologies are more important than personnel and therefore
the drafting of our dollars for war and preparation for war is a crucial
matter. The central issue in the earlier General Board recommendation, in my
perspective, was not tax resistance per se but whether the Mennonite Church
is ready to respect and support the consciences of those who request that
their taxes for military purposes not be withheld.
Recently, a young man named Jose was returning to his house in the
Philippines. Government soldiers, who later claimed Jose was out after
curfew, shot this defenseless youth, leaving him with a serious leg injury.
They refused him treatment for enough days that gangrene claimed his lower
leg. When we finally met Jose in the hospital, the lad needed to find blood
for his leg amputation.
Weekly, in our work with Mennonite Central Committee, we hear stories of
global brothers and sisters who are being maimed or killed with weapons of
war, many of them supplied by the American government. Therefore, when we
are faced with the turning over of our income to the Internal Revenue
Service for supplying these coffers of war, it feels to us that to do so
willingly would be the equivalent of signing the death warrant for innocent
friends.
We do not expect that everyone in the Mennonite Church will share these deep
convictions of ours. We believe that many Mennonites have wrestled with this
issue in honesty and prayer and have come to different conclusions from our
own.
Still, we are very saddened when we learn in Gospel
Herald that Mennonite Church General Board chose to back away from
recommending to General Assembly that the convictions of church
institutional employees who object to paying military taxes shall be honored
by their employers. The action leaves us feeling lonely.
What is the church telling us? Are our convictions out of place in our
church? Are we considered stubborn people who refuse to see the truth that
the church identifies? Is the church asking us to give up these deeply held
convictions? We don’t know. We sincerely value the counsel of the church
community. And yet somehow we can’t seem to shut off our (misguided?)
consciences on this matter.
Linda Peachey in “Agonizing Over War Taxes”… makes a good argument for
withholding war taxes. However, there is another angle from which to view
the issue of not paying war taxes. The primary Scripture cited in the debate
is Matthew 22:15–22 (and parallels). If we would apply a little historical
and political exegesis to this passage, we would have to ask ourselves how
we could apply Jesus’ response to ourselves.
For instance, we are not a nation or a people held captive under a foreign
ruler, such as Palestine was during the time of the Roman Empire. Also, we
are not presently ruled by a monarch; we realistically have no “caesar” over
us. If there is a caesar, so to speak, then we are caesar.
In the United States, our constitution begins by naming our caesar, “We the
people,” and Abraham Lincoln elaborated that phrase from our preamble by
claiming that our government essentially is and must remain a “government of
the people, by the people, for the people.”
In our form of democracy, we have no absolute authority set over us. What we
do have is public servants set under us. We, as responsible citizens, are
the authority of this nation. If our nation blunders and falls, the blame is
on us, not merely on those whom we have elected.
Those of us who withhold a portion of our tax are trying to re-orient our
national priorities. While what we do is considered to be illegal, we are
breaking a law of the people (willing to take responsibility for our
actions), but we are not breaking a law against caesar. What we are
trying to do is give to our government (ourselves) what it needs to function
as a force for order, a system for providing for the needs of all, and as a
body of law to carry out justice. (See Jacob Hutter’s and Menno Simons’
writings in Plots and Excuses and Foundations,
respectively.)
We do not all agree on the question of nonpayment of taxes for military
purposes… But shouldn’t we all be asking whether an agency of our church
should withhold taxes for employees who have a conscience against payment of
the military portion? Should a peace church agency side with the state
against the conscience of its own members? And is that consistent when the
church is on record supporting the conscientious action of its members in
nonpayment? It would seem appropriate for us to arrive at a plan whereby the
request of employees be respected and taxes for military purposes not be
withheld by church agencies.
We’ve known since childhood the stories of God’s people in the Old and New
Testaments who said to government and religious authorities, “I can’t do
that,” or “You can’t do that,” or “We can’t do that,” and then took the
awful consequences. Will we rouse from our easy “Christianity” and recognize
when the time has come for us to say such words — to obey God rather than
man and take the consequences?
As for the recommendation on military tax withholding, the board concluded
after consulting the district conferences that the recommendation had to be
rewritten. The sequence of events was as follows.
At Purdue , General Board was asked by General
Assembly to consult the church on the question of the conscientious objection
to the payment of military taxes, particularly the withholding of such taxes
by church institutions for persons who objected to paying them.
In , General Board approved a
statement for presentation to General Assembly at Normal
which included the recommendation that the
convictions of church institutional employees who object to paying military
taxes shall be honored by their employers.
During , district
conferences were contacted by General Board to seek their counsel on the
proposed statement. Responses were mixed. Three conferences supported the
proposal for presentation to General Assembly. Four conferences did not
support it. Eight supported the statement with modifications or cautions.
Executive Secretary James Lapp reported to the board that “I perceive in
general there is no broad consensus of support for the proposed stance of the
General Board.”
Accordingly the board saw it as necessary to prepare a drastically revised
proposal. Gone from this proposal was any reference to illegal action such as
a church institution refusing to collect military taxes from those
conscientiously opposed to paying them. Instead the statement which is to
appear in the “workbook” prepared for General Assembly delegates calls for
“study of the church/state issues raised by the collection of taxes by church
agencies” and for support of the Peace Tax Fund options being called for in
both the U.S. and
Canada.
Military taxes for church employees is a particularly difficult subject. This
issue has been knocking around for several years already. As I reported on
, the General Board at its last
meeting passed a much less decisive proposal than expected. This revision was
made after consultations with district conferences. If anyone wishes to press
for the church to take a radical position on this issue, it will be necessary
to make that point clear since the General Board received mixed signals in
consultations with the conferences.
The General Board had a last chance to tangle with the issue
:
The Mennonite Church General Board held a
prior to Normal
. No major issues were resolved in this brief
meeting. Much of the activity involved receiving reports and doing final work
on statements to be presented to General Assembly.
Among the reports being prepared for the assembly was one related to the
payment of war taxes. This followed an action of Purdue
which had called for the board to study this
issue and report to Normal . There had been a
change of stance after consultation with the district conferences.
In , the board had drafted a
proposal which included a recommendation to respect the consciences of
employees of church organizations who do not wish to have the military portion
of their income tax deducted from their paychecks. By
this proposal was withdrawn and the
emphasis was rather on study of the issue and support of the Peace Tax Fund.
On , the board made final revisions
on this statement for presentation to Normal .
And then the General Assembly met and pushed back against the Board’s
reluctance:
The conference delegations caucused several times during the debate about
war-tax resistance. Here Dave Miller makes a point to his fellow delegates
from Indiana-Michigan Conference.
Merger with a sister denomination and illegal support for war-tax resisters
became a distinct possibility following two crucial secret-ballot votes by the
Mennonite Church General Assembly delegates during Normal
. The merger vote was decisive — 86
percent — and there were no surprises. But the tax vote was close — 59
percent — and was the result of an unexpected turnaround on the General
Assembly floor.
Ruth Brunk Stoltzfus of Virginia Conference calls for more courage instead of
more study on the matter of tax-withholding.
The war-tax issue proved to be a much thornier and more complex matter. It all
started about 10 years ago when employees of Mennonite Church
agencies and schools began requesting that taxes not be
withheld from their paychecks so they could refuse to pay the
portion of their federal income taxes (about half) that is used by the
U.S.
government for military purposes. The
employees said they are conscientious objectors
to military taxes in the same way their fathers and
grandfathers were conscientious objectors to
military service in times of conscription.
The agencies and schools would break the law if they honored their employees’
request. Caught between their employees’ consciences and the government’s
requirements, the agencies and schools appealed to General Board for help.
What followed was years of study and discussion.
Finally, in , General Board members
voted to recommend to General Assembly that church agencies and schools be
permitted to honor the requests of employees who want to resist war taxes. The
General Board action then went to district conferences for their response. The
response was mixed and generally cautious, so General Board watered down the
recommendation at its meeting. By
the time of its meeting the day before the start of Normal
, however, General Board put some teeth back
into the document, but it was still a weakened form of the original version.
When General Assembly took up the issue, several delegates jumped up to scold
General Board for its indecisiveness. “General Board has backed off on this
issue, and that makes me sad and angry,” said Bob Hartzler of Allegheny
Conference. “General Board must exercise leadership on this and not just
gather consensus.” He then asked that the original recommendation be restored.
After more debate and two time-outs for district conference caucuses, the
delegates agreed to vote separately on the three sections of the revised
recommendation and then on the “heart” of the original version, as requested
by Hartzler. The three sections were approved by unanimous or near-unanimous
hand votes.
The revised document calls for (1) further study of the war-tax issue, (2)
financial and other support for the peace-tax fund options being proposed in
the U.S. Congress
and the Canadian Parliament, and (3) moral and financial support for war-tax
resisters.
Action on the heart of the original version, giving agencies and schools
permission to not withhold taxes when requested, was tabled until later in the
week. When the issue came up again,
GC general
secretary Vern Preheim was present to report on his denomination’s experience
since it took a similar action in . Though
the U.S. Internal
Revenue Service contacted the
GC leaders
early on to confirm the action and warn them about the consequences, to date
IRS
has not moved against the
GC Church.
The district conferences then caucused, and when debate resumed, many of the
speakers reported on the general feelings of their conference delegations. “We
stand in a long line of saints who have faced decisions like this, starting
with the women who illegally hid baby Moses,” said Weldon Nisly of Ohio
Conference. Del Glick of Indiana-Michigan Conference reported that several
people in his delegation had changed their minds and were now prepared to vote
yes. “We want to take a stand,” he said. “It will probably take more courage
to face our congregations than to face the government!” Brent Foster then
announced the support of Afro-American Mennonite Association.
Ron Schertz, a lawyer who is a board member of Mennonite Board of Missions,
offered one of the few opposing comments. He warned that approval of the
document would get in the way of
MBM’s
main mission and jeopardize its tax-exempt status.
When the votes were counted, the resurrected war-tax recommendation passed
142-100. Moderator-Elect George Brunk Ⅲ commented that the vote is not a
decisive mandate for General Board but that it does represent “some momentum
on this question.” He said General Board “will have to move with due caution”
and that “we’ll have to see if a greater sense of consensus emerges in the
coming biennium.”
Robert Hartzler of Allegheny Conference introduces an amendment that put
teeth back into the war-tax recommendation.
Special-interest activities abounded. Vigorous
discussion marked a session entitled “Should the
Church Be Caesar’s Tax Collector?”
This was followed by the General
Board meeting, at which the probably somewhat shocked Board would
have to determine how (or whether) to put the Assembly’s
mandate into practice. It seemed to reach the conclusion that since
it could not identify any employees who were currently
requesting the Church to stop withholding war taxes from
their salaries, they could safely
kick the can down the road a few years further:
Another major agenda item for General Board was follow-up work on the military
tax action by General Assembly at Normal . After years of study and debate, the General Assembly delegates
voted to permit denominational agencies and schools to honor — illegally — the
request of employees who, for conscience’ sake, don’t want taxes withheld from
their paychecks. This is so they can refuse to pay the portion that is used
for the military.
The General Assembly vote was close (59 percent) and no employees are
currently requesting non-withholding, so the General Board members agreed to
proceed with caution. But they also agreed that regardless of what the
agencies and schools do and regardless of whether General Board itself has
employees who request non-withholding, they would take a clear stand on
military taxes and submit another recommendation to the next General Assembly
sessions in .
Meanwhile, General Board will plan a major consultation on military taxes for
and prepare a study guide to be
ready by then. Conferences and congregations will then be encouraged to study
the issue and report to General Board.
This is the thirty-first in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
General Board Follies
So if you remember from our last episode, the board of the Mennonite Church was dragging its feet about supporting employees who did not want war taxes withheld from their paychecks.
Then the whole Church, in its General Assembly, forced their hand by voting to honor the requests of such employees.
But apparently the board still saw that as advisory and not binding, because
they kept right on dragging their feet:
After several years of study and discussion, the Mennonite Church General Board brought the military tax question to a vote — and tabled it.
Normal attenders will recall that a majority of General Assembly delegates voted to “support” the efforts of church board employees who do not wish their taxes deducted so that they can deal with the government in regard to military taxes.
The issue came back to the General Board as such issues will and it was given
extended attention at the spring meeting which convened at Kalona (Iowa)
Mennonite Church, .
An early straw vote strongly favored going ahead, but when decision time came,
a majority voted to table the motion.
As presented, the motion called for agreeing “in principle” to honor requests of employees who ask that their income tax not be withheld.
However, such approval was intended to be reviewed in the session of the board after a congregational study process which is now being initiated.
No taxes were to be withheld prior to .
Motion to table, it was suggested, was related to the pending congregational
study process. The board was concerned not to prejudice the case before the
study process. Also there was concern that the possible consequences of such
withholding be better understood. What action might the government take toward
board officers?
Moderator George Brunk Ⅲ and Executive Secretary James Lapp indicated that they were not unhappy about the motion to postpone action. “Some of us thought ‘in principle’ could be helpful in the study process,” said Brunk. “The board position has been in the direction of the proposed motion,” he continued. “But there are different ways to capture this.”
Yet another Military Tax Consultation was held to allow for more jaw-exercise and to cover for the delay:
Mennonite Church General Board is holding a Military Tax Consultation in response to actions taken by General Assembly at Normal .
It will be held at Goshen College.
Mennonite Church conferences are invited to send teams of persons to the event.
Since General Assembly called for “continued study of issues raised by taxation for military purposes,” General Board is currently preparing a study guide for use by congregations.
It is being prepared under the direction of Robert Hull and will be ready in time for the consultation.
The most controversial — and potentially illegal — action taken by General Assembly was its permission to denominational agencies and schools to honor the request of employees who don’t want taxes withheld from their paychecks so they can refuse to pay the portion (about half) that goes to the military.
More information about the consultation is available from General Board…
Ray Gingerich talks about tax resistance during the small-group discussion
time.
Daniel Hertzler reported on the consultation:
Wilma Gingerich (left) and Leanna Rhodes share their experiences in refusing
to pay the military portion of their taxes.
Some 30 people met at Goshen College, , for a “Consultation on Military Tax Withholding.” The military tax question has been on Mennonite Church agenda , General Board executive secretary James Lapp told the group.
But now it has become focused on the issue of “tax withholding” by church agencies for people who wish to deal with the Internal Revenue Service on their own.
Avowed purpose of the consultation was to introduce a study guide, “As
Conscience and the Church Shall Lead,” being prepared for use in
congregations. To this end Marlene Kropf of Mennonite Board of Congregational
Ministries led the group in an educational experience.
In the beginning, and alternatively throughout, there was story telling.
Military-tax resisters told how they got into it.
All referred to a variety of spiritual influences and life-changing experiences.
Seven persons told personal stories.
Among them was Dan Hunsberger of Hesston College, who worked one summer for a contractor without taxes withheld and got a tax bill for $1,700. “I considered this use of money wrong, not only from a peace standpoint, but also bad business.”
David Weaver, a teacher at Central Christian High School, grew up in a family
that eschewed political involvement. But in
he went on a student tour to the Middle East and spent some time on the West
Bank of the Jordan River, the home of persecuted Palestinians. Then, in
, he wrote a paper on the issue of war taxes
and in the same year he went to Nicaragua with Witness for Peace. “I saw the
Nicaraguan people and looked into their eyes,” he said. That year he decided
to withhold 55 percent of his income taxes.
“At the beginning I felt very heavy about this.
In November when they came and took money from my account, it was like a burden was lifted.
What really can they do to harm me?
We’re in the world for a short life.
There are little things we can do.
This doesn’t mean my hands are clean.
But it is a small action.”
Ray and Wilma Gingerich from Harrisonburg,
Va., gave a joint report
which recounted a decades-long, growing concern over the issue of war taxes.
When they first became aware of the issue, they had no income taxes to pay.
But by they finally had enough income to be
taxed and began to withhold 50 to 59 percent. “Our son Andre refused to
register under Carter,” they said. “We saw some relation between this and
middle-aged people not paying for war. We cannot continue to pay taxes while
applauding our young who resist the draft.”
Ray expressed concern that Mennonite Church leaders have not been more forthright about the issue. “We need to try to draw our leaders into the discussion.
Leaders generally get their authority from the people, not from the poor or the Bible.
In some respects, tax resisters must lead the leaders.”
Among the leaders present was Paul Gingrich, president of Mennonite Board of
Missions. He acknowledged that
MBM
first faced this issue , when
John and Sandra Drescher-Lehman asked that their taxes not be withheld. The
MBM
board of directors is divided. Some threaten to resign either way.
But Gingrich concludes that some corporate action needs to be taken as an object lesson, a parable so that younger Mennonites may learn firsthand about resisting militarism. “We have a generation that only hears the stories of those resisting World Wars Ⅰ and Ⅱ and the Korean conflict,” he said. “The institution can become a symbol.
In the action is a tremendous teaching moment.”
He continued, “In every generation we need to discover the issue on which we
will not compromise. For what will we be ready to die? Is this the place to
stand? Is this the way to stand? If an institution takes such an action, it
may be that the institution will not survive. But maybe that is not the most
important thing.”
No clear-cut answer to Gingrich came out of the consultation.
But from small-group settings a cautious consensus emerged.
Most groups encouraged church agencies to respect the consciences of persons who do not wish their taxes deducted by the agency, even though such honoring would involve the agency in illegal action.
Several groups pointed out, however, that there are ways for persons to gain
access to enough tax money to make a symbolic protest without implicating
their agency in illegal action. It was urged that they explore these first.
James Lapp, who called the consultation, and Marlene Kropf, director of the educational experience, both expressed satisfaction with the session. “We need to recognize that there is a complex set of issues here,” said Lapp. “Our goal is to help people to see that there is more than one way to be faithful.”
Although I have not been involved in the issue, I believe the issue of military tax deductions of church employees has been around for at least a decade.
I am concerned about the continued reluctance of General Board to implement the will of General Assembly to support church board employees who as a matter of conscience do not wish to have their taxes deducted.
As reported in “General Board Tables Military Tax Question”… the eagerness
with which the board embraces broad “visions” while avoiding concrete actions
is striking. Whatever the possible actions of the government toward board
officers if tax withholding is stopped, it would surely be mild in contrast to
the price paid by Mennonite leaders during World War Ⅰ who refused to
financially support the war effort. “A Pastor Pays a Price for Peace” in the
same issue of Gospel Herald is an illustration.
[See ♇ 1 September 2018]
Discussion of visions is fine, but no vision is more catching than one demonstrated through faithful action.
My sympathies are with the General Board employees who have patiently gone through the lengthy process required to have their concerns embraced by General Assembly, only to have the issue kicked back into a “study process” by General Board.
The board’s apparent relief at being able to postpone action on this issue
should be juxtaposed with Moderator George Brunk Ⅲ’s concern stated in his
“state of the Mennonite Church” address that “We are not facing conflict as a
people of God. The question of our faithfulness calls for eternal vigilance.”
Daniel Hertzler tried to put the whole thing in context with a editorial:
The issue of paying military taxes has been knocking about in the Mennonite Church for close to a generation.
At the “Consultation on Military Tax Withholding” (Goshen College, ) it was reported that John Howard Yoder was writing about this already in .
Perhaps these writings were not published. The earliest material on this
subject which I could find in the Gospel Herald was
“Dare We Pay Taxes for War?” by John Drescher ().
I found this editorial with help from Swartley and Dyck’s Annotated
Bibliography of Mennonite Writings on War and Peace:
(Herald Press,
). This book has 16 pages on the topic “War
Tax Resistance,” so the subject has clearly been one of concern among us. Some
of the references go back into , but
not in the Gospel Herald.
Drescher’s editorial indicates that concern about the issue arose during Mennonite General Conference and that “delegates asked for direction on the matter of paying taxes designated for war purposes.” A resolution was passed calling for “a fresh study of the biblical teaching”!
Has anything changed among us in 23 years?
At the Goshen consultation I listened to Willard Swartley declaim on Romans
13:1–7, and I suddenly got a clue as to why this issue keeps grinding on with
no resolution in sight. “Pay all of them their dues,” writes Paul, regarding
the authorities, “taxes to whom taxes are due…”
So there it is.
If Paul wrote to the Romans that they should pay their taxes, why do modern Mennonites sit around debating whether they may pay the military part of their taxes?
We are known as people of the Bible.
Isn’t the Bible plain enough?
Not so fast. At Goshen, Willard Swartley presented a 12-point outline entitled
“Method for Bible Study.” The first three points were entitled “Observation:
What does the Bible say?” The second five he captioned
“Meaning: What is the text saying?’ The final four he called
“Significance: What says the text?” Beyond these I think the most
important thing he said was that Romans 13:1–7 should be interpreted as part
of a longer unit in the letter (certainly a basic Bible study principle) and
that probably there was a local controversy in Rome over the payment of
specific taxes. Paul’s counsel to the Romans was to pay these specific taxes
and was not intended as a general principle, regarding all taxes in all times
and all places.
Willard pointed out that the New Testament has a number of normative texts on this subject.
He mentioned the following: Colossians 2:15; Ephesians 1:19–23; 3:10; 1 Peter 3:22; 1 Corinthians 15:24–26; Romans 8:35–39; Ephesians 6:12–20.
Romans 13, he said, should be interpreted in dialogue with this longer stream of texts.
In the end, said Willard, there is “ambiguity in the biblical tradition over the place of authorities: respect for their responsibility for order versus awareness that they represent evil.” In other words, by simply paying taxes without thinking, we may be selling out.
Two others at Goshen discussed the issue from a theoretical standpoint: ethics
professor J.R. Burkholder and Pastor John F. Murray. Murray proposed that the
answer to the war tax problem is to be found in generous giving to the church.
Since in the U.S.
one can contribute up to 50 percent of one’s income, or $50,000, he proposed
that reducing our income through contributions is a more effective response
than tax resistance. Further, he pointed out, anyone who saves money and puts
it in the bank is supporting the military just as much as the person who pays
taxes. “When we give only 5 percent of our income as a denomination, we are
not faithful.”
Burkholder stressed the reality of ambiguities. “We will have to learn to live with pluralism in the Mennonite Church,” he asserted. “We do not have the same position on war taxes.”
Clearly we do not. And as James Rhodes responded to Burkholder, “There is
danger in an emphasis on ambiguity of diluting our basic foundation of
biblical obedience.”
So it is important that we not give up just because we come with different perspectives on the issue.
It is urgent that those with different points of view listen to each other under God and under the Scriptures.
We have no other place to go.
In response to your editorial, “Why is it so Hard to Get to the Bottom of the War-Tax Question?”… and the news article piece on the war-tax consultation in the same issue, let me note the following: Why is it that the Mennonite Church can so easily reach clarity that homosexuality is a sin and ban any dialogue whatsoever with gay members of our community but yet find the war-tax issue “contains a complex set of issues” and that it is “filled with ambiguities”?
Why must we accept pluralism and ambiguity on this issue when we can so
easily reach apparent consensus on the gay question? Is this not rather
self-serving and hypocritical, for on the one hand our church fathers tell
us we must accept differing biblical interpretations, pluralism, and
ambiguity on war taxes but somehow the gay issue is crystal clear!
It seems to me that there is no ambiguity, for as you note, Romans 13 is not intended as a general principle that we must pay all taxes to government.
Further the whole text seems to make clear that we must clarify our loyalties and choose whom we serve, God or Caesar.
Further it seems clear that if we follow the way of peace, we can have no part in allowing our money to pay for killing and war.
If there is room for ambiguity I think it is more apparent on the gay question.
On war taxes it seems clear.
Perhaps our leaders wish to keep it plural, for only a minority can support
our historic peace witness these days, while they know that pluralism is
unacceptable for the gay question given the majority in our community who
are convinced that homosexuality is sin. Wake up, leaders, and be fair! You
can’t have it both ways. Either we seek clear standards and follow them or
we become Unitarians or Quakers, where everything is ambiguous.
Schultz started off with the typical Render-unto-Caesar / after all Rome
was a militaristic government / Jesus never complained about paying taxes
line. Then he finished off with the “silent majority” gambit:
I urge all of those conservative Mennonites who usually remain silent to “send the General Board a message” — mainly, not to be tempted into politicking with the liberal pacifist elements, and to remain within the boundaries of biblical nonresistance.
If there are those who want to withhold taxes, let them do it without having the actions of the General Board as a shield.
“Why Is It So Hard to Get to the Bottom of the War Tax Question?”… Maybe because there is no bottom — only a bottomless chasm between two irreconcilable views.
In my own imagination I see the story told in Matthew 22 in modem “dress.”
The Pharisee digs through the pockets of his custom-tailored suit. From a
jumble of temple contribution receipts and credit cards (Pharisee-controlled
banks) he produces a $50 bill.
“Whose portrait is on that bill?”
“General and President Ulysses S. Grant.”
“If you deal in portraits of deceased generals and presidents, you owe a commission to those who occupy their offices today.
But don’t forget that you owe even more to God.”
Again, we know that Caesar does not divide his tax collections between two
baskets labeled “war” and “peace.” It all goes into one basket, and then is
divided out as Caesar wishes. And so, if 50 percent (or whatever) goes for
“war,” then 50 percent of anything that an individual deposits into
the basket goes for “war.” The persons who pay 50 percent of their taxes are
in fact paying half of their “war” tax and half of their “peace” tax.
I admire those who for conscience’ sake voluntarily live at the “poverty” line so that they do not owe the tax that they object to paying.
They have adjusted their lifestyle to put their (lack of) money where their “mouth” is.
I’m not willing to do that — a character flaw, perhaps, but one that I seem to share with many others.
Is it wrong to want to share in at least part of the standard USA lifestyle without paying for Caesar’s expenses in maintaining conditions that promote this lifestyle?
Do we want a “free lunch”? And, of course, Caesar’s money can do God’s work,
or so we are told by those responsible for keeping church agencies and
institutions in the black. Those who have the spirit of generosity also need
something to be generous with. And Caesar pays a part of the gift.
If we deal in portraits of deceased generals and presidents, what do we owe to those who occupy their offices today?
Over a number of years I have read articles, pro and con, on the war-tax issue.
Your editorial on the same subject has rekindled my interest.
A large percentage of the arguments have been of a theological or theoretical nature.
However, I have not seen the following point of view mentioned.
Many of us in the Mennonite Church are no longer independent farmers and/or
businessmen or self-employed.
(At age 48 I have witnessed this transition.) Therefore, we have little or no control over the deductions from our pay checks.
No company, business, or public institution that I know of would seriously consider a request not to withhold a certain percent of taxes due.
Some firms that are operated by Christians may grant us their understanding and be sympathetic in attitude, but simply are not willing to get into the legal and business ramifications of a tax fight with the federal government.
Consequently, the war-tax issue, while perhaps valid, is to many simply a
moot point lingering in a gray mist on the edge of our consciousness. Could
this be why the General Assembly vote on
the General Board war-tax recommendation went 142 for and 100 against?
For me, if the federal government would institute a special, separate, extra-budget war tax (as done in the American Revolution, for example), that is a horse of a different color.
I would try to resist in some way as my ancestors collectively did in Lancaster County, Pa., in the Revolutionary times.
Having written my Indiana senators and representative on the war-tax issue, I see no change in federal tax regulations to be soon in coming.
The issue announced that if “continued study” was the order of the day, the Mennonite Church General Board was equipped:
Study guide on military tax withholding from Mennonite Publishing House.
Prepared at the request of Mennonite Church General Board, it is designed to facilitate discussion of the General Assembly request for “continued study of issues raised by taxation for military purposes.” It is entitled As Conscience and the Church Shall Lead.
A response form is provided so that Sunday school classes, small groups, and individuals may provide feedback.
Question was also raised about the Normal decision regarding war taxes.
Board members noted a lack of clarity on what the decision meant.
Slightly more than half the delegates had agreed that churchwide agencies need not withhold the military portion of taxes for employees who request this.
Moderator George Brunk Ⅲ noted the decision is valid but that it can be reconsidered following a churchwide study on war taxes currently underway.
[T]he Mennonite Church and the General Conference Mennonite Church General Boards take the following action:
That the General Boards express deep concern about and opposition to the
military buildup and the growing threat of war in the Persian Gulf, reaffirm
their biblical understanding that the will of God is for humankind to live in
peace and harmony and that war and militarism are counter to God’s intentions,
and call our congregations to the following:
To confess our own complicity and selfishness in utilizing more than our share of the world’s supply of oil and other resources and for our limited concern for long-standing injustices in the Middle East, and also to confess and reexamine our complicity in paying for the military buildup through our taxes.
They focused on the question of withholding war taxes for their employees. delegates to Mennonite General Assembly had authorized churchwide boards to honor requests of employees not to withhold the military portion of their income taxes; final decision was up to each board.
Though it had been previously discussed in several meetings, General Board had made no decision on the issue.
Nor did it come easy this time. Board members raised questions about their
financial liability. They acknowledged the burden of leadership: other
churchwide boards were awaiting the General Board decision for help with their
own.
In the end General Board agreed “to honor the request of an employee who for conscience’ sake requests that the military portion of his or her federal income tax not be withheld.” But they hedged.
They made the action subject “to development of acceptable policies for implementation approved by the board.”
Miscellany
There was also plenty of content around this time that wasn’t directly prompted by the Mennonite Church board’s inaction.
For example, there was a series of letters-to-the-editor
debating war tax resistance. Here are a pair of them, side-by-side:
Why I willingly pay my taxes
While paying taxes may be an economic burden to some, may be a question of
conscience to others, and may be an accounting nightmare for many more, I
willingly pay my taxes. Why?
It is a matter of submission.
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no
authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.” ―Romans
13:1–2
I am called to not only submit to God and to submit to my church leaders
but also to submit to my civil authorities.
The only time that I can refuse to obey the governing authority is when God’s law requires me to
do otherwise.
It is a matter of conscience.
“You must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’
sake.
For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.
Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs,
fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” ―Romans 13:5–7
For me the payment of taxes is not so much an attempt to avoid
penalties, court orders, or imprisonment but it is a matter of Christian
conscience.
It is a matter of integrity.
“ ‘Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to
Caesar, or not?’ But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, ‘Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?
Show Me the tax money.’ So they brought Him a denarius.
And He said to them, ‘Whose image and inscription is this?’ They said to Him, ‘Caesar’s.’ And He said to them, ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are
God’s.’ ” ―Matthew 22:17–21
I consider firstfruits tithing to be an important dimension of Christian
living.
However, should I render unto God the things that are God’s by tithing through my local church but fail to render to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar by paying my taxes, only one part of Jesus’ instruction would be fulfilled.
To be a person of integrity requires me
to both practice firstfruits tithing and to pay my taxes.
It is a matter of honesty.
“You shall not steal.” ―Exodus 20:15
To steal is to take that which belongs to someone.
The Israelites were told by the prophet Malachi that they had robbed God.
The problem was not a pilfering of the temple storehouse, but rather a withholding of tithes and offerings.
To keep back a portion of tax dollars that the Internal Revenue Service determines are due to my government would, in my opinion, be a form of stealing.
To be a person of honesty requires me
to pay my taxes in full.
It is a matter of credibility.
“Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s
sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.
For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men — as free, yet not using your liberty as a cloak for vice, but as servants of God.” ―1 Peter
2:13–16
Admittedly, I have concern about some aspects of the federal budget.
Reports of mismanagement, fraud, and excessive deficit spending are certainly not consistent with my understanding of fiscal responsibility.
However, should I withhold a portion of my taxes as a means of protest when the Scripture specifically calls for the payment of such would be to lose my credibility and Christian witness.
To have credibility in a world of many critics of the gospel, I must be careful to “do good” — in
this case, to pay my taxes in full.
―Robert D. Wengerd, Coshocton, Ohio
In response to “Why I Willingly Pay My Taxes”…, I feel I must prayerfully challenge the author’s unquestioning willingness to pay all taxes while he in no way addresses the tax issue as it pertains to the military budget.
In fact, the author’s own reasons for paying taxes are some of the same reasons I can no longer pay the portion of tax that finances the war machine.
The first point being a matter of submission, the author concludes that the
only time he can refuse to obey the governing authority is when God’s law
requires him to do otherwise. The law of God is that we love God with all
our heart, soul, and mind, and love our neighbor as ourselves. How can I
love my neighbor if I willingly pay for his murder? Hitler was able to do as
much evil as he did because so many Christians submitted to human authority
rather than God’s authority.
Second, it is a matter of conscience.
I willingly and conscientiously give taxes, customs, fear, and honor to whom they are due (Rom. 14:5–7), but only as I can do so with a clear conscience before God.
To willingly contribute to a system of oppression and murder under any nation’s flag is in conflict with what God calls me to do.
Third, it is a matter of integrity. To say that our firstfruits tithing goes
to God and our taxes go to Caesar is to miss the point of what Jesus says in
Matthew 22:17–21. Such an understanding puts God and Caesar on equal footing
as though each is due equal allegiance. To be a person of integrity, I must
offer all I have to God first, including my awareness of how my tax dollars
are spent. I cannot with integrity refuse to bodily take part in killing
another human made in God’s image, but be willing to pay someone else to do
so.
Fourth, it is a matter of honesty.
I don’t believe that refusing to pay for war is stealing from the government.
Indeed, we pay for war by stealing from the poor.
We have the choice to either help bring hope of a better life to our neighbors with needed services, housing, and education or take part in their oppression by buying weapons to protect us from them when they tire of watching their children starve to death.
Fifth, it is a matter of credibility. The author pays all taxes because he
wishes not to lose his credibility and Christian witness. Of what and to
whom are we witnesses? Are we credible witnesses to Jesus’ presence in our
hearts to our brothers and sisters in Central America, such as the priests
and church workers in El Salvador who were murdered by death squads trained
and armed by our tax dollars? I might be willing to pay all my taxes if
Congress passes the Peace Tax Fund bill which would allow those who are
conscientious objectors to have their taxes used for nonmilitary purposes.
But until that opportunity is available, I will no longer pay war taxes, but
instead will put that money to use where it will nurture life and not poison
it.
Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Peace Section is inviting contributions for the Taxes for Peace Fund.
The fund, established in , gives people who want to withhold war taxes a way to contribute their money toward peaceful purposes.
While contributing to this fund is a symbolic action and not a legal alternative to paying the tax, many people have found it a meaningful way to demonstrate their commitment to peace.
Last year, $5,750 in Taxes for Peace money was divided between the National
Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund and Christian Peacemaker Teams. This year’s
contributions will be divided the same way.
The National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund seeks to enact the U.S. Peace Tax Fund Bill, which would give those conscientiously opposed to war a way to pay 100 percent of their taxes by designating the military percentage to a separate fund for peace-enhancing programs.
Christian Peacemaker Teams is an initiative of North American Mennonite and related churches to develop and support more assertive peacemaking.
MCC
constituents have contributed more than $75,000 to the Taxes for Peace Fund.
Among other projects, the money has funded reconstruction efforts in
Indochina, aided victims of violence in Guatemala, and supported the
MCC
U.S. Peace Section.
The following excerpt is from one of several dozen letters sent to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in by contributors to the Taxes for Peace Fund: “We will sleep better tonight than if we would be helping to keep the murder machine going for the United States.
And hopefully, all the people of the world will sleep better when we can all stop financing their death threats and death squads.” (John and Sandra Drescher-Lehman, Richmond, Va.)
Checks for the Taxes for Peace Fund should be made payable to
“MCC,
Taxes for Peace.”…
An information packet on military-tax opposition is available for $3 from MCC U.S. Peace Section.
It contains varying theological positions on the war-tax issue and materials about tax laws and legal concerns for the tax resister.
Updated materials are available for those who purchased earlier editions of the packet.
The issue announced a “Standing Up for Peace” contest in which young people (ages 15–23) “are urged to interview someone who has refused to fight in war, pay war taxes, or build weapons and then write an essay or song, produce a video, or create a work of art.” The MCC (U.S.) Peace Section was one of the sponsors.
St. Louis (Mo.) Mennonite Fellowship has decided to stop paying its telephone tax as a form of protest against military spending.
Federal phone tax revenues, first collected in , contribute directly to the U.S. Armed Forces. “Though the biblical basis for such action has been debated, we wish to respect the convictions of our members and Anabaptist forebears and foremostly to be disciplined followers of Jesus Christ,” said Scott Neufeld, who coordinates the congregation’s peace witness.
The congregation will send its tax money instead to Mennonite Central Committee.
Five European Mennonite theologians are proposing changes in a World Council
of Churches statement that is being discussed at
WCC’s
Convocation on Justice, Peace, and the Integrity of Creation in Seoul, South
Korea, .
One of them, Andrea Lange of West Germany, took the proposed revisions to
Seoul as a representative of the Dutch Mennonite Church and the North German
Mennonite Church, both of which are
WCC
members. The Seoul statement grows out of an extended “conciliar” process by
WCC
member churches. The Mennonite revisions call for the rejection of force and
support for conscientious objectors to military service and those who refuse
to pay war taxes. The revision also calls for the full use of women’s gifts in
the church — and to “admit them to all church offices.”
The issue included an article on Mennonite martyrs of the World War Ⅰ period who were persecuted for refusing to buy war bonds (see ♇ 1 September 2018 for that article).
The issue of military tax withholding for MBCM employees was discussed at length.
However, no action was taken.
Since no MBCM employees are currently requesting that the military portion of their taxes not be withheld, the board agreed to wait for such a request before responding to the military tax withholding question.
In J. Lorne Peachey took over from Daniel Hertzler as editor.
We haven’t heard from Peachey yet so I don’t know if he took any position in the war tax resistance debates that might influence his editorial positions.
A letter to the editor from John F. Murray used the war tax resistance issue as a rhetorical hook in the course of trying to prompt readers into tithing more to the Church.
Another letter,
from Jim Leuba, in the
issue, gave taxpaying Christians a pointed edge:
In reference to your suggestion in your editorial that we spend a day praying for “Peace in the Persian Gulf”…, I feel the following is an appropriate prayer:
“Lord, today I am praying for peace in the Persian Gulf. I pray our armies do
not use the weapons I helped pay for with my tax dollars. Never mind. Lord,
that I could live at an income level that did not require paying war taxes.
And, Lord, a war will only increase the price of oil. I am so addicted to oil
that I can’t imagine life without it. Never mind. Lord, that I use at least 10
times more fossil energy than 75 percent of the earth’s human population.
Protect me. Lord; I am a North American Christian.”
The following syndicated news brief appeared in the issue:
A Philadelphia Quaker organization must garnish the wages of its employees who fail to pay income tax for religious reasons, a federal judge in Philadelphia ruled.
But Judge Norma Shapiro also said the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends cannot be penalized for failing to honor the levies imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
The case involved the refusal of three Friends employees to pay the full amount of their taxes because part of it would go to the military, and that would violate their religious antiwar beliefs.
In her decision, Shapiro cited the
U.S. Supreme Court
decision last year in Employment
v. Smith, the
controversial Oregon peyote case. In denying unemployment benefits to two
residents, the high court ruled that since ingestion of peyote was a crime in
Oregon, “the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the
obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on
the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion
proscribes (or prescribes).”
Eastern Canada Conference of Mennonites was struggling with the same issue of tax resisting employees that had troubled the General Conference Mennonite Church and the Mennonite Church (Ron Rempel reporting, ):
Canadian conference responds to military tax objectors
Waterloo, Ont. (Mennonite Reporter) — Two Ontario Mennonite leaders have declared their conscientious objection to the payment of military taxes.
However, their employers have not yet decided whether or how to cooperate with the request to redirect military taxes for peaceful purposes.
Fred Martin, the student and young adult minister for Eastern Canada
Conference, first raised the issue in . Jean-Jacques Goulet, pastor of Wilmot Mennonite Church, took a
similar stand the week that the Persian Gulf War started. His church is
waiting to see how the conference will resolve the matter.
, at its fall delegate meeting, the conference gave notice of a recommendation that will be dealt with at the annual meeting .
That recommendation called on the conference to support Martin not forwarding to Revenue Canada the portion of his income tax used for military purposes.
Since the meeting, the executive board
of the conference has looked more closely at how to proceed if the
recommendation is accepted. The board has
prepared an alternative resolution, calling on the conference: (1) to
“withhold no income tax from the salary of any conference employee who
requests this on the basis of conscience”; (2) to inform Revenue Canada and
members of Parliament of the decision; (3) to ask the government to introduce
legislation recognizing conscientious objection to payment of military taxes
and to provide peaceful alternatives for use of these tax dollars; and (4) to
support other church boards, agencies, and congregations that may adopt
similar policies.
“As far as we know, no one in Canada has gone this route,” commented Sam Steiner, secretary of the conference.
Others who have asked for the cooperation of employers in not paying military taxes have become “contract employees,” or “self-employed contractors.”
Eastern Canada Conference, however, is proposing to treat military tax
objectors as full employees, and to continue all regular benefits and
deductions, except for income tax deductions. It would be left to the employee
to remit income taxes to Revenue Canada after redirecting the military
portion.
This procedure has been used by the General Conference Mennonite Church after that denomination decided in to support military tax objectors.
The Mennonite Church has made a similar commitment in principle, but has not yet decided on a procedure to use.
According to Steiner, the conference would technically be Hable for breaking
tax laws by deciding not to collect income taxes for the government.
Reporter Ron Rempel followed up on that report with this:
Baden, Ont. (Mennonite Reporter) — After a vigorous debate, delegates to the annual meeting of Eastern Canada Conference, , defeated a proposal calling on the conference not to deduct income tax from employees who want to redirect the military portion for peaceful purposes.
They also tabled an alternative resolution.
The conference executive board developed its proposal in response to a request
from its student and young adult minister, Fred Martin. He indicated in
that he objected on the
basis of conscience to paying military taxes. He asked the conference — which
is required by law to deduct all income taxes and remit them to Revenue
Canada — to help him find a way to express his conscience.
In the recent Gulf War, “my body was not being conscripted, but my money was,” commented Martin in a brief presentation before delegates. “How can I pray for peace but pay for war?”
In introducing the proposal, conference secretary Sam Steiner said the
executive board had not been unanimous. Some abstained from voting; others
were against the proposal. He also said the proposed action could make the
conference legally liable for breaking the Income Tax Act.
The legal question dominated the discussion by delegates.
For example.
Ken Musselman said military tax objectors should use other options, like increasing charitable donations or cutting back their overall income to reduce taxes.
A number of delegates said that individuals who want to redirect military taxes should assume the legal liability themselves — for example, as contract employees — rather than expect conference to bear it.
Others supported the proposal.
They cited historical precedents such as World War Ⅰ conscientious objectors choosing jail rather than the military uniform.
A number who lined up at the open mikes said they liked the second part of the
executive board’s proposal — to seek legislation recognizing conscientious
objections to payment of military taxes — but objected to the first
part — asking conference to defy current income tax laws.
The delegates then faced two choices: either table the executive board’s proposal or look at an alternative resolution.
The alternative, presented by Margot Fieguth, began with the second part of
the original proposal: an attempt to work through legislative and legal
avenues to secure recognition of conscientious objection to payment of
military taxes and to provide peaceful alternatives. This resolution also
suggested that conference offer Fred Martin a contract position, so that he,
rather than conference, would be responsible to make income tax payments.
Delegates decided not to table the original proposal.
But before they started debating the alternative, there were voices calling for a vote on the executive board’s proposal.
“I would like to hear the truth of where the conference stands on this issue,”
said Jean-Jacques Goulet, pastor of Wilmot
(Ont.) Mennonite Church.
During the Gulf War he had declared himself a conscientious objector to
military taxes. And his congregation was waiting to see how conference would
respond to Fred Martin.
In a ballot vote, the executive board’s proposal was defeated 159-48.
It was late in the evening.
The alternative resolution was on the floor.
But someone proposed that it be tabled till the next session of conference.
The motion carried.
The “Taxes for Peace” war tax redirection fund gave its annual report in the issue:
The Peace Section of Mennonite Central Committee U.S. is inviting contributions for the “Taxes for Peace” fund.
Established in , it gives people who want to withhold war taxes a way to contribute their money to peaceful purposes.
Donations last year totaled $3,700, and they were sent to the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund and to Christian Peacemaker Teams.
More information is available from MCC U.S. Peace Section…
Another General Assembly was held
, and
I’m sure the board of directors were on tenterhooks hoping that the Assembly
would let them off the hook about implementing the decision they’d made at
the previous General Assembly to begin refusing to withhold war taxes from the
salaries of objecting employees.
Delegates did look to themselves in reconsidering a statement on the Peace Tax Fund.
The statement had called on individual Mennonites to contribute to this fund.
Noting that less than one percent had done so, this time delegates took action to urge conferences and congregations to put the Peace Tax Fund in their budgets.
The Peace Tax Fund would allow conscientious objectors to pay their taxes by
diverting the military portion to a special trust fund. Efforts are currently
underway to have the Fund be considered by lawmakers in the
U.S.; a comparable
campaign is also being considered in Canada.
In Mennonite General Assembly went on record to encourage individuals to contribute to a peace tax fund campaign.
Less than one percent of us did.
So in Oregon delegates made their action stronger: they are now “urging” district conferences and local congregations to put the peace tax fund into their annual budgets.
So your congregation will need to make a decision about that “urging” some
time in the next two years. Will you give expression to your belief in peace
by supporting a congregational budget item to contribute to a peace tax fund?
The contribution will be used to help sponsor legislation in both Washington
and Ottawa to legitimatize a peace tax fund as an option for persons opposed
to having their tax money used for military purposes.
Some Seniors for Peace withhold the military portion of their income taxes and contribute it to a peace fund.
Many actively support lobbying for legislation for a peace tax fund to provide alternative service for tax dollars.
And finally, a letter to the editor from Tim Nafziger urged Mennonites not to stop, satisfied by redirecting their taxes to a peace tax fund. “The Mennonite Church is called to do more than be morally pure,” he wrote.
This is the thirty-second in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
In I felt the tide start to recede. The war
tax resisting faction had gotten thoroughly distracted by the promise of Peace
Tax Fund legislation, and the conservative taxpaying faction went back on the
offensive in favor of paying taxes without concern.
One of the symptoms of the decay of the war tax resistance position (that I’ve
also seen exhibited elsewhere) was the plea for new resisters to refuse to pay
some tiny, safe token amount of taxes in lieu of more firmly-motivated and
whole-hearted resistance. From the issue:
Christian Peacemaker Teams
(CPT)
is asking U.S.
taxpayers to deduct $3.03 from their federal taxes, as a symbol of their
objection to the $303 billion Defense budget.
CPT
would like congregations to collect withheld money and send it to become part
of the offering at the organization’s conference in Richmond.
Va. The offering will go to
school districts such as the one in Petersburg.
Va., which cannot afford to
buy textbooks.
“The Peace Tax bill is not going to be passed anytime soon,” says [Marian]
Franz frankly. “Not enough people have said they care — and that includes
Mennonites.
“I see a bitter irony in that,” she continues, “because if there were such a
fund, pacifist Christians would say that it was God’s will that they use its
provisions. Yet these same people are doing little to make this fund a
reality.”
The issue printed this
syndicated short news item:
Peace activist Randy Kehler has been jailed and his family’s house confiscated
because of his decade-long refusal to pay
U.S. taxes.
Kehler and his wife, Betsy Corner, have withheld their federal taxes since the
late 1970s. Instead, they have sent their tax dollars to nonprofit
organizations that assist war victims and the poor.
The Internal Revenue Service laid claim to the couple’s house in Colrain,
Mass., to recoup some
$32,000 in back taxes, interest, and penalties.
Discussion by a panel of war tax resisters highlighted a Lancaster,
Pa., meeting sponsored by
the group Taxes for Life. Some 20 people attended the meeting, which also
included a showing of the video Paying for Peace.
Taxes for Life urges individuals to withhold a small, symbolic amount from the
payment of their
U.S. income taxes
and to give the money instead to a local school project. More information is
available from Taxes for Life…
The statement on “Christian Conscience and Military Taxes” says that Illinois
Conference “will seek to support our members who feel a genuine call from God
to withhold payment of military taxes.”
The statement cites examples of this support as including prayer and personal
encouragement, finances, and witness to “political and social powers.”
The resolution also calls on Illinois congregations to contribute a minimum of
$5 per household to the Peace Tax Fund campaign.
The “Taxes for Peace” tax redirection fund gave its annual report and plea for
new funds in the issue:
The U.S. Peace
Section of Mennonite Central Committee
(MCC)
is inviting contributions for the Taxes for
Peace fund. Established in , the fund gives
people who withhold war taxes a way to give their money for peaceful purposes.
This year’s contributions will go to
MCC
U.S. peace
education projects. More information is available from
MCC
U.S. Peace Section…
John K. Stoner tried to blow on the fading coals in the
issue:
The voice of the victims of war keeps rising up. The cry of children, abused and traumatized by war, will not be still.
by John K. Stoner
Last Thursday my phone rang. The voice at the other end of the line asked for
John or Janet Stoner. “I’m John Stoner,” I replied. “Hello. I am Charles Price
of the Internal Revenue Service. I am calling about the letter you sent
indicating that you are withholding part of your income tax payment.”
We talked for about ten minutes, as I explained why Janet and I had said no to
paying the full amount of our income tax. The man could not understand why
anyone would invite the collection pressures of the
IRS upon
themselves by withholding some taxes. But by the time the conversation was
over, he was a little closer to understanding that this was for us a matter of
faith and a question of the practice of our religion.
It was a Mark 13:9
kind of experience of being called before the authorities. By the sound of
Mark 13,
Jesus expected this kind of thing to happen regularly to his followers.
“Why do they have to keep bringing up this business about taxes for war?”
someone asks after a congregational meeting. “Why doesn’t this war tax
question just go away?” asks another at a session on strategies to reduce the
military portion of the
U.S. budget.
The reason war keeps coming up and won’t go away is because the voice of the
victims of war keeps rising up. The cry of the children, abused and
traumatized by war, doesn’t go away.
Every discussion about peacemaking in these times must face the question of
how taxes are collected and spent.
Americans watched their tax dollars at work in Iraq. They killed between one
and two hundred thousand people in a month’s time. They left a nation of 17
million people strangled — its water polluted, its hospitals without
electricity, its homes dark, and its classrooms cold. Today malnutrition,
disease, and destitution are the continuing results of this man-made plague of
death and despair.
Since then, an international study team on the Gulf crisis found that the
mortality rate of children under five years of age was almost four times
greater then than before the Gulf War. More than 75 percent of Iraqi children
feel sad and unhappy, worry about the survival of their family. They are
haunted by the smell of gunfire, fuel from planes, fires, and burned flesh.
Taxes paid for all this. It is for those of us who are Christians, as
taxpayers, to sidestep our share of the responsibility. We can choose to “just
say no” (how simple that sounds when we prescribe it to someone else’s moral
choice and how difficult it sounds when it is ours).
Your $3.03 Taxes for Life equivalent can be sent to Christian
Peacemaker Teams…
CPT
also suggests you write a letter of witness to the
IRS with
copies to your representatives in Congress, your
pastor, and your local newspaper. Taxes for Life funds will
be used for education purposes.
I believe God is calling us to plead for the end of the
destructive social institution of war by
refusing to pay for it. We are called to this as clearly
and inescapably as our forebears were called to
abolish slavery. The question is not whether we can achieve that
goal in a year or decade. The question is whether that is our goal — and
whether the world knows that it is our goal. It was Jesus’ goal, and it should
be ours.
One way to enhance this witness is through a symbolic war tax refusal called
Taxes for Life. Sponsored by the Christian Peacemaker Team, this plan would
have taxpayers redirect an amount equivalent to one penny for every billion
dollar of the U.S.
military budget to education. For ,
this is $3.03.
If you do this, and the
IRS
calls, tell them that it makes you a little bit nervous to break their law. Go
on to say that you are far more apprehensive about breaking God’s law. Tell
them that you hear God’s warning rising up from the victims of war, and that
you have decided that you will not take their blood upon your hands. Then
leave the outcome with God.
For U.S.
Mennonites, one way we can work at it at this time of year is to take yet
another look at the tax question. As John Stoner reminds us…, it is our taxes
that keep the military going, that make possible aggression and belligerence.
Because of this, some choose not to pay a part of their taxes as a protest.
Others consider that overreaction.
But let us not make that our battle. While we do, more people starve. Let us
rather join hands to find all the ways possible to address the huge military
expenditures of our country, and of the world.
Members of a Newton, Kan.,
group heard reports on the
U.S. Peace Tax Fund
bill in a meeting. The Peace Tax
Group also discussed ideas for creating a local alternative tax fund. Carla
Morton and Stan Bohn reported on their visits to Washington,
D.C., in
connection with a Congressional hearing on the tax fund bill. In addition,
group members talked about starting a local fund for such projects as
environmental protection, mental health care for veterans, and retraining of
military workers.
The following disheartening news was carried in the
issue:
Friends Journal, a Quaker monthly published in
Philadelphia, has agreed to pay $31,343 to the
U.S. Internal
Revenue Service.
The payment covers back taxes for the magazine’s editor, who had refused to
pay them because of religious objections to their use for military purposes.
The magazine’s board had refused
IRS
demands that it pay the taxes on behalf of the editor, Vinton Deming.
However, the Justice Department warned the board that it would face legal
action unless the matter was settled, and the magazine’s lawyer advised the
board that it could not win such a case in court.
Now that the pro-taxpaying conservatives were no longer on the defensive, they
apparently no longer felt the need to promote the Peace Tax Fund legislation as
an alternative to lawlessness for Mennonites concerned about their taxes paying
for war. Now they could attack the Peace Tax Fund as being also
scripturally unsound. Or so said
Ernest E. Mummau
in a letter to the editor
that evoked the usual Romans 13 / the government is divinely ordained to bear
the sword / Christians are told to pay taxes without complaint / the Church
should stay in its own domain and shouldn’t meddle with the state line of
argument to tell Mennonites to stop trying to tell the government what to do
with their taxes.
The fourth international conference on war tax resistance and peace tax
campaigns was held in Brussels in . The Gospel Herald article,
and especially the quotes from Peace Tax Fund activist Marian Franz, tried to
spin it as though it was more or less exclusively a Peace Tax Fund promoting
event, with very little mention of actual war tax resistance:
Conference participants came with at least one thing in common, [Marian] Franz
said: “We all find it a clear violation of conscience to pay the military
portion of our taxes; we seek statutory recognition of conscience against
paying for arms as an extension of the right to refuse to bear arms.”
The conference, which draws primarily European and North American
participants, has met every two years .
The gathering allows participants “to hear stories of resistance and to
compare our progress in gaining conscientious objection
(CO)
status to payment of military taxes within our respective countries,” Franz
said.
For instance, NCPTF
hopes to convince Congress members to pass a law permitting people
conscientiously opposed to war to have the military portion of their taxes
allocated to peacemaking.
“Most countries have a similar approach to war tax resisters,” Franz noted.
“The standard response of governments, when they do respond, is to add civil
penalties and collect the unpaid taxes forcibly. Imprisonment for war tax
resistance is rare.”
Court responses to these cases are usually predictable as well. “The issue
usually raises a ‘political’ question which the courts cannot address, or the
courts decide that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience or
religion do not outweigh the duty of the citizen to pay taxes,” she said.
[Franz said:] "Most European war tax resisters entered the scene in
. The presence of Cruise and Pershing
missiles woke them up. They suddenly realized that Europe had become a giant
football field on which the two superpowers could bounce their nuclear
weapons.”
This prompted another
letter to the editor,
this one from Russell J. Baer, which also used the Render-unto-Caesar / Romans
13 beef to complain about activists who have an issue with paying war taxes.
This is the thirty-third in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
By things had slowed to a crawl. It was only
a few years back that talk of war tax resistance had risen to a frenzy, and the
subject was a regular topic of debate in the Mennonite Church General Assembly.
Now: not so much.
The annual “Taxes for Peace” redirection fund update appeared in the
issue:
Mennonite Central Committee
U.S. Peace and
Justice Ministries invites contributions for the
Taxes for Peace fund. The fund, established
in , gives people who withhold war taxes a
way to give their money to peaceful purposes. Contributions will support the
creation of peace education materials and education about pastoral sexual
misconduct by the Women’s Concerns desk and Mennonite Conciliation Services.
Remnants of the old passion were preserved on videotape
():
Videos about war taxes available from Mennonite Central Committee. In “Paying
for Peace,” war tax resisters share why they resist paying war taxes and the
impact of that decision on their lives. “Compelled by Conscience” explains how
the Peace Tax Fund would allow people to designate the portion of their
federal taxes used for war to a fund for peacemaking programs. Contact
MCC…
MCC
occasional paper, “Silence and Courage: Income Taxes, War and Mennonites,
,” by Titus Peachey, explores the
connection between income taxes and war in both
U.S. and Canadian
history, with particular emphasis on the World War Ⅱ period. This is the
18th in the Mennonite Central Committee Occasional
Papers series. Available from
MCC…
That’s it for . I racked my brain for more
possible explanations for the sudden fall-off of war tax resistance content in
this period.
One possibility I didn’t consider before is that perhaps those who promoted war
tax resistance were at first an easy-to-ignore minority, but when they began to
organize and exert influence this prompted “the silent majority” (or perhaps
just a more-influential or more-politically-skillful minority) who were against
war tax resistance to begin to organize and throw their weight around too. Once
that group finally got organized and active, the war tax resisters lost the
advantage they had gained by being the first movers on the issue and ended up
getting thwarted.
I’m not convinced that’s the answer, but it’s another possibility, or maybe
part of the answer.
Magical and wishful thinking might also be a partial explanation for the
decline. There’s the Peace Tax Fund scheme, which has its own fantastic ideas
associated with it, and then there’s something like
this “dream”
Nancy Brubaker shared in the
issue:
The U.S. government
has sent Internal Revenue Service investigators to find out why so many people
no longer owe any military taxes. The Mennonites explain to the
IRS
about the fund they have created with the money they are saving by living more
simply. This money, they say, is to be used, not to defend the United States
against other nations, but to defend Mother Earth against human beings.
Already the money is being used to save endangered species of whales, to
educate people on the dangers of plastic, and to teach Christians how to put
on more sweaters when it is cold.
The Heartland Peace Tax Fund is offering grants of up to $500
(U.S.) to local
service agencies or to individuals. It invites application from organizations
or individuals who serve underprivileged people (especially those underserved
by governmental agencies), and from those who work for non-violence and for
community and environmental improvement. Application deadline is
. To receive an application, send a
self-addressed stamped envelope to Newton [Kansas] Area Peace Center…
I thought the follow-up report ()
contained a noteworthy example of reinforced helplessness. Note that the
article is describing a ceremony in which war tax resisters redirected taxes to
charitable causes right there and then but then the article goes on to
say that this is a demonstration of “what a national peace tax fund
could do if passed by Congress” (emphasis mine):
Three Heartland Peace Tax Fund grants of $250 each have been awarded by the
Newton (Kan.) Area Peace
Center. The recipients are the Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Association of
Harvey County, Offender Victim Ministries (both of Newton), and the Samaritan
Counseling Center of Hutchinson. The Heartland Peace Tax Fund was instituted a
year ago; these are its first grants. They demonstrate locally what a national
peace tax fund could do if passed by Congress — allow people conscientiously
opposed to war to direct their tax dollars to meeting human need, says Susan
Balzer, Hesston, who chairs the Peace Tax Group (a focus group of the Newton
Area Peace Center).
Peacemaking sounds like a natural, noble expression of the gospel which
Christians of many stripes will applaud. But its modern ring may have more to
do with assuring social and ecumenical acceptance than with a willingness to
make a costly and distinctive witness for the gospel. Many Christians may be
willing to extol the virtues of peacemaking, but few are willing to sit in
jail for refusing to pay taxes for warfare.
You need to be more supportive of the laws of this great nation. We
can’t accept people making selective payment of taxes. You should be
happy to pay for your defense.
Minnie Knight:
I give to God what is God’s. My loyalty belongs to the Lord. I want no
one killed in my name.
The Clinton administration was pushing a health industry overhaul at this
point, and there was lots of buzz about the possibility of “taxpayer-funded
abortions,” and so that and war tax resistance got tangled up in each other in
a couple of letters to the editor:
It is more than passing strange that Mennonite leadership has favored
withholding taxes for the military but now supports a health care program
which may pay for the murdering of pre-born babies. If we are opposed to
this abominable aspect of the Clinton health plan, why not say so in no
uncertain terms?
This took the point of view of a Canadian looking over the proposed
U.S. health
industry law:
Yes, I do resent seeing my tax dollars help pay for abortions. However, if
the criterion is that we should avoid paying taxes which fund death, then
all of us on both sides of the border must stop paying military taxes
immediately.
This is the thirty-fourth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
In the issue, Titus Peachey tried to rekindle the spark of moral urgency around the issue of war tax resistance:
As tax deadlines near in the United States and Canada, half a world away in Laos, farmers prepare for spring planting.
For northern Lao farmers, hoeing can be a deadly task because of cluster bombs, now buried, that were dropped by the U.S. during the Vietnam War.
alone, Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) received news of 18 casualties in Xieng Khouang Province.
In North America, cluster bombs do not exact a toll of broken limbs and lives; rather, they appear in the guise of jobs, an expanding tax base, and protection of a way of life.
The MCC / Mines Advisory Group effort to remove bombs in Laos is not just a technical fix for the tragic consequences of war, but it is also an invitation to a spiritual journey along the paths of compassion, justice, and repentance.
The project challenges us to consider what Christ’s peace means when routine obedience to tax laws brings pain to others.
Sadly, tax dollars still fund cluster bombs.
The Human Rights Watch Arms Project estimates that some 34 million cluster bombs were dropped over Iraq and Kuwait during the Persian Gulf War.
Even a conservative estimate of a 5 percent dud rate means that some 1.7 million unexploded bomblets are strewn throughout Iraq and Kuwait.
According to the Human Rights Watch Arms Project, 1,600 civilians — Iraqi and Kuwaiti— have been killed and some 2,500 have been injured in cluster bomb accidents since the end of the war.
Taxes for peace
Each year,
MCC’s
Peace and Justice Ministries invites contributions to a special “Taxes for Peace” fund.
This fund allows people who withhold the portion of their taxes that would go for military purposes to contribute that money for a peaceful purpose.
While this is a symbolic action and not a legal alternative to paying the tax, many people find it a meaningful way to demonstrate their commitment to peace.
In the United States about 46 percent of federal income tax goes for military purposes; in Canada the figure is about 7.5 percent.
This year’s “Taxes for Peace” fund will support peace education and responses to militarism.
This will include publishing a revised edition of “Peace Education: Ideas That Work” and preparing materials to assist congregations in responding to military industries and recruitment in local communities.
Checks should be written to MCC and sent to MCC U.S. Peace and Justice Ministries…
In companies from Lancaster, Pa., to Downey, Calif., a new generation of cluster bombs is being produced.
Cluster bombs are also manufactured by other countries.
They have been used recently in the former Yugoslavia and by Russia in its battle with Chechnya.
Unlike land mines, whose export is currently banned, cluster bombs are still exported to other countries.
In , a Minnesota firm announced that Turkey had agreed to purchase 493 CBU-87 cluster bombs — a type that combines anti-armor, anti-personnel, and incendiary effects.
Human rights groups oppose the sale because of Turkey’s poor human rights record; the sale awaits approval from the U.S. State Department.
In the midst of complex political, military, and economic systems that create defense strategies and weapons such as cluster bombs, one of the church’s greatest temptations is silence and accommodation.
Lao villagers, who have lived with cluster bombs these past 20 to 30 years, are often silent also, lacking options.
They don’t have the technical expertise to address the problem.
Pressed with the demands of making a living from the soil, they have endured the outrage of cluster bombs so long that for many it has become “normal.”
In a similar way, North American Christians have become accustomed to beautifully landscaped industrial parks that produce weapons and to the annual ritual of paying a percentage of their income tax for war.
The MCC / MAG bomb removal project in Laos, along with our commitment to Christ’s peace, challenge us to imagine alternatives.
Simpler living and reduced incomes can lower tax liabilities.
Groups of people can combine withheld tax dollars and contribute to programs that support peace and life.
We can write letters of concern about the use of taxes for war and share them with legislators or submit them as letters to the editor of local newspapers.
We can also open conversation with local weapons manufacturers and discuss meaningful alternatives to the production of arms.
A question had begun to emerge in Mennonite circles about whether it was okay to accept unrepentant members of the military as bona fide Mennonites (this is how far the “nonresistant” doctrine had fallen by this time).
Lester Lind wrote a letter to the editor on this issue for the issue that touched on his war tax resistance:
I affirm conscientious objection to war that I learned in the Mennonite Church.
For me this includes nonpayment of that part of my taxes going for military purposes.
It seems to be stretching the boundaries to the breaking point to include those of us who cannot in clear conscience pay all our taxes and those who willingly serve in the military.
Another letter to the editor, this one from Dennis Brooks (), was ready to jettison entirely the idea that people who served the military were violating Christian doctrines by doing so:
Perhaps nonpayment of war taxes and other antimilitary strategies (as opposed to Jesus’s nonviolent strategies) are a result of Anabaptist culture rather than biblical theology.
I know some Christians who neither participate in war taxes or, for that matter, in an economy that requires war taxes a priori.
They are called priests, nuns, and monks in some churches.
In others they are missionaries.
Many have forsaken family, homes, lands, and generally all that is part of the American dream to pursue a life of active peacemaking.
Others invest their life in families and various careers and see no conflict with the teaching of Jesus.
We all make choices.
And Daniel Slabaugh chimed in () to say that the Mennonites might as well throw in the towel and start admitting soldiers, after all the compromising they’d been doing on their nonresistant testimony:
If honesty is a virtue, then Virginia Mennonite Conference [which apparently was considering welcoming members of the military into their congregations] should be affirmed in their attempt to live it.
The Mennonite Church has voluntarily and without protest financed (the ultimate form of approval) the American military since the beginning of the federal income tax.
To refuse membership in this church to a person who is committed to the military is therefore blatant hypocrisy.
However, the honesty of admitting that we no longer believe in “Love your neighbor as yourself” may have lost any redeeming quality.
This is another verification of the fact that when the goal of the church is numbers, then the first casualty is unpopular scriptural truth.
[P]eople stepped forward to announce their pledge to transform violence with nonviolent action in the coming year.
Pledges included withholding at least $20 from one’s income tax ($1 for every 1000 nuclear warheads in existence today)…
John Longhurst reported, in the issue, that there was some hope for a Peace Tax Fund law to be enacted in Canada, so long as the law would have no practical meaningfulness:
Winnipeg, Man. (MCC Canada) — Canadian church and peace groups have been told that the federal government is open to a proposal to allow taxpayers to legally divert their income taxes away from military spending.
That message was conveyed to a delegation comprised of representatives from the Conference of Mennonites in Canada, Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) Canada, Conscience Canada, the Quakers, and Nos Impots Pour la Paix during a recent meeting in Ottawa with officials from Finance Minister Paul Martin’s office.
According to Sylvain Segard, departmental assistant in the Finance Minister’s office, “the Minister is receptive” to the idea and is open to seeing “if something can be done” to accommodate the request within the current tax code.
The proposal marks a change in direction for the groups, which previously had called on the government to set up a Peace Tax Fund, an independent fund administered by a volunteer committee to which Canadians could redirect tax dollars.
Money would have been directed from this fund to government departments and agencies, as well as to nongovernmental projects chosen by the committee.
Different governments have consistently maintained that the creation of such a separate fund would be impossible since it would constrain the authority of the government to establish policy and set spending priorities.
The new proposal replaces the idea of the fund with a Peace Tax, which would be part of the income tax code.
“The government was never going to make the Peace Tax Fund legal since it created another tax-receiving body and, by putting control of the fund in the hands of a committee, impinged on Parliament’s ability to determine how taxes would be spent,” says Chris Derksen Hiebert of MCC’s Ottawa Office.
“The new proposal allows the government to maintain control of and receive redirected money.
In return, they would promise not to use redirected money for the military.”
According to the new proposal, taxpayers who wanted to direct the military portion of their taxes — 7 percent of federal spending in — could do so by checking a box on their income tax form.
Joy Newall of Conscience Canada acknowledges that the new direction is a compromise.
“We did it to get something we believe in: to have conscientious objector status recognized within the framework of the tax code,” she says.
What Conscience Canada gives up is the ability to tell the government where the money should go.
“The government will only guarantee that the money will not go to the military,” Newall explains.
Newall is hopeful that eventually the government will be open to letting taxpayers designate where they want their redirected taxes to go.
Possible programs and projects include foreign aid, research and training in nonviolent resolution of conflicts, and peace education.
“I think the government thinks that only a few people will actually take advantage of this opportunity,” she says.
“But I believe they will be hugely surprised by the large number of Canadians who will very happily divert their taxes away from military spending.”
Elwin Hermanson, Reform Party House Leader and a member of the Beachy, Sask., Mennonite Brethren Church, is sympathetic to the idea, as long is it “would not place a costly bureaucratic burden on the system.”
Copies of the Peace Tax proposal are available from the MCC Canada Ottawa Office…
The “A New Call to Peacemaking” initiative was still active, and held a conference on “Peacemaking in the Nuclear Family” in .
The group seems to have moved on from war tax resistance as a primary focus, but it still came up:
David and Sabrina Falls, Quakers from Richmond, Ind., told the story of their war tax resistance.
Jesus was active, they told the group.
Yet even when he was angry, he “employed love in the form of challenging words and nonviolent demonstrations, rather than violence.”
This is the thirty-fifth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
The Gospel Herald would cease publication as an independent magazine at the beginning of , merging with The Mennonite as the Mennonite Church merged with the General Conference Mennonite Church.
Today I’ll show some of the final mentions of tax resistance in the magazine before the merger.
The “Taxes for Peace” redirection fund gave its annual update in the edition:
Mennonite Central Committee U.S. peace and justice ministries is again inviting contributions for the “Taxes for Peace” fund.
the fund has allowed people who withhold the portion of their taxes that would go for military purposes to contribute that money to peacemaking initiatives.
In , the funds will bolster efforts to halt the production of cluster bombs and landmines and support resources on conscientious objection to military service and taxes.
Contributions made payable to MCC can be sent to “Taxes for Peace,” MCC U.S. Peace and Justice Ministries…
A report on the “Taxes for Life” group appeared in the issue.
They somewhat carelessly redirected their taxes from the federal government to the state government, for what that’s worth:
Taxes for Life delegates present a check of diverted war taxes for health needs of low-income families to the governor’s office in Harrisburg (Pa.) on .
They are (left to right): Herb Myers, Annn Marie Judson, John Stoner, and Dave Schrock-Shenk.
Lancaster, Pa. — On , the day U.S. income taxes are due, some Mennonites here diverted a portion of their war tax money toward health needs of unemployed persons.
They presented a check of $1,000 to the office of Governor Tom Ridge in Harrisburg.
The war tax objectors are part of Taxes for Life — a group that meets to support each other in seeking biblically nonviolent responses to the government’s demand for funding of war and military preparations.
Governor Ridge had threatened to cut 260,000 persons off the medical assistance rolls in Pennsylvania, arguing that the money was not available in the state to cover those needs.
“We wanted to demonstrate that if wasteful and destructive expenditures in military systems could be redirected, life-giving programs like health care to vulnerable citizens could be well-funded,” says member Earl Martin.
Speaking to government actions.
On , in a perhaps unrelated action, Governor Ridge announced his intention to compromise on his cut-back proposal.
The $1,000 gift came both from diverted federal war tax money and “sympathy money” from supportive friends, according to Martin.
For example, Sarah and Herb Myers of Mount Joy, Pa., wrote to the Internal Revenue Service, “How can we continue contributing financially toward the madness and sinfulness of our military system when we have claimed to be conscientious objectors to serving in the military?”
The Myers, Mennonite medical professionals, each withheld $28.50 from their taxes due to the IRS.
The $28.50 symbolized a dime for each of the $285 billion the United State government spends on current military expenditures.
“We realize the above action is illegal and we do not undertake it lightly,” they wrote to the IRS.
“We have taught our children that laws are to be obeyed “unless they violate one’s commitment to a higher power than the government.”
[sic] But in a democracy, they added, “we must speak clearly toward our government’s actions or we too are guilty of complicity.”
On , members of the Community Mennonite Church of Lancaster took a celebrative “second offering” in which children and adults walked forward to contribute “sympathy money” to the Taxes for Life effort.
They added $575 with that spontaneous offering.
Governor Ridge’s representative, after an extensive discussion of the issues with Taxes for Life representatives, received the check only to pass it on to the state treasurer’s office.
Whether the state treasurer will choose to cash the check marked “diverted war tax money and contributions” remains unknown.
The issue of whether a person could be a Mennonite in good standing, and be a soldier at the same time, was still being argued out in the letters to the editor column.
Here’s an excerpt from Eldon Epp’s letter in the issue in which he tries to bring the discussion back around to war taxes:
I wonder if we often limit our nonviolent witness to refusing military enlistment.
That leaves the onus for the sins of violence on military personnel.
Our witness must include the invitation to military personnel to consider Jesus’ way.
That witness has integrity when the rest of the church is also asking how to be nonviolent Christian citizens.
Mennonites paying taxes and remaining silent about an astronomical “defense” budget are also complicit in violence.
Brother Leslie Francisco Ⅲ expressed this well in Between the Rock of Peace and the Hard Place of Outreach.
A letter from Perry Keidel () began by advocating war tax resistance, but then suggested Peace Tax Fund lobbying instead:
While no war now rages that demands our sons, people of conscience in the United States are nevertheless forced into the morally unconscionable position of underwriting the continued, unchecked growth of the largest military industrial machine in history.
Mennonites have a proud and painful history of refusing to compromise on the issue of military conscription.
But given that war revenues from Mennonites are enough to at least support the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, we cannot at the same time be called uncompromising pacifists.
Perhaps the state department concedes CO status to Mennonites because we still by and large hire the soldiers that fire the bullets.
If Mennonites are unable to take responsibility for the use to which the state allocates revenues forcibly taken from them, then Mennonite understandings of separation of church and state must expand to organized refusal to cooperate in paying war taxes.
Every Mennonite congregation should send two or three letters to their U.S. Senators voicing their concern and asking that the Peace Tax Fund bill be adopted.
This bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide that a taxpayer conscientiously opposed to war have tax monies spent for nonmilitary purposes.
That’s the first step.
In the issue “vsw” (Valerie Weaver) wrote about angels without wings (i.e. ordinary people who do extraordinary things), and included war tax resisters among them:
[I]f angels play wonderful, life-giving jokes on the world, then I’ve seen them… They play jokes of life on the government by refusing to pay war taxes and then giving more to mission and service agencies than the government would even require for itself.
And in the issue, J. Lorne Peachey wrote an editorial asking what makes Mennonites special or different.
In the process, he gave short shrift to war tax resisters and demonstrated how much their stars had fallen:
Larry Hauder’s questions are worth pondering: How are we different from the world?
What does it mean today to be separate?
My favorite answer is that, in addition to accepting Jesus as Savior and Lord, we believe in a lifestyle of peace and nonviolence.
Yet that’s hard to make visible when our country is not involved in a major war.
Those who try to do so through such means as refusing to pay “war taxes” we generally dismiss as too zealous in making discipleship practical.
The issue reprinted from The Mennonite a news brief about the IRS seizure of the home of war tax resisters Elizabeth Gravalos and Art Harvey.
Editor J. Lorne Peachey was back in the to ask whether one reason the Mennonite Church was stagnating might be because it wasn’t being persecuted for taking bold stands:
…comfortable North American churches aren’t growing while persecuted churches in other countries are.
How do we “stand alongside [the poor, the dispossessed, and the outcasts]”?
Some of us have answered by withholding our war taxes.
Others have joined Christian Peacemaker Teams. Some sell or give away their possessions and live in community.
Others go into dangerous parts of the world and attempt reconciliation.
Yet these are mainly individual acts.
For the most part, we as a total church have not been able to agree even on these relatively simple attempts toward faithfulness.
Can a non-persecuted, comfortable church also be a growing, faithful church?
The record has not been good.
In Mennonite history, we have the examples of churches in Russia and Europe, where, as Christians grew wealthy and accepted, their message became diluted and weak.
Even in the New Testament we read much more about the “mission outposts” that were being questioned and oppressed than we do about the more wealthy and better-accepted mother church in Jerusalem.
A faithful church that’s not persecuted?
God just may be giving North American Mennonites another chance to see if that’s possible.
We are the best-read, most-educated, and probably the wealthiest Mennonites who ever lived.
Can we catch a vision to channel that knowledge and wealth into living and proclaiming the gospel rather than in spending the majority of it on ourselves?
We… try to legally avoid federal taxes because of the large portion which supports the military.
We have some tax breaks that many others do not have because John is an ordained minister.
But, as a matter of principle, to legally avoid taxes, we have placed our savings in tax-free investments, tax-sheltered Individual Retirement Accounts, and similar 401K instruments.
These savings, with tax-free compounding, have grown to $200,000 — by saving 15 percent of our annual income with interest compounding at an average rate of 6 percent over the years.
Another international conference on war tax resistance and peace tax fund campaigns was held .
Again, the Gospel Herald coverage of the event made it out to be mostly a Peace Tax Fund legislation conference, with actual war tax resistance only a footnote:
London, England — Supporters of peace tax campaigns and war tax resistance from 16 countries met here, , to discuss the progress and importance of working corporately toward a peace tax law.
Three American Mennonites attended the conference that was hosted by British members of the Peace Tax Campaign: Marian Franz, director of the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund; Cesar Flores, member of the Honduran Mennonite Church, and Susan Balzer, administration committee member of the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee.
Speakers reported on the peace tax legislation proposals in various countries and expressed the belief that if one country passes a peace tax bill, other countries would soon follow.
In , the United States became the first country to initiate peace tax bill proposals.
Current lobbying efforts are geared toward making the bill’s passage a religious freedom issue.
Keynote speaker Erik Hummels, from the Netherlands, defined peace as “a dynamic process of cooperation among people which includes human rights, economic justice, and the absence of situations that can lead to war.”
In addition to observing Prisoners for Peace Day and honoring those who have been imprisoned for conscientious objection, conference participants attended workshops on war tax resistance issues.
Meanwhile, on the 25th anniversary of the original introduction of the peace tax fund bill in the U.S. Congress, Representative John Lewis would try to attach it as an amendment to some bill that would actually see action on the floor, but his attempt was voted down.
A Clinton administration spokesperson testified against the amendment.
The bill would then be rewritten into something closer to its present form, under the title “Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act.”
How can I work for peace if I pay for war?
Is paying for soldiers to murder less evil than pulling the trigger myself?
Millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, Japanese, Salvadorans, Iraquis, Koreans, and Germans begged their gods to protect them as U.S. bombers destroyed their homes and crops and massacred their families.
Some of the victims prayed to Jesus.
All this happened while Christians in the United States paid taxes to build and fly the U.S. bombers and sang every Sunday about God’s love for all people.
Half of every federal income tax dollar goes for war — past, present, and future.
Tax dollars are the lifeblood of the military beast devouring the world’s poor.
In order for the U.S. or any other empire to plunder and to massacre, two things are required from many citizens — silence and paying taxes.
For 18 years I have paid no federal income tax by living under the taxable income level, and I also am not silent.
I prize living the truth as best I see it far more than unnecessary material possessions.
I say — not with my money, not with my silence, not in my name!
“If you really care about not supporting the military with your taxes, use the full charitable donations deduction allowed,” the speaker in our young adult Sunday school class challenged.
We could deduct up to 20 percent of our income for charity.
Twenty percent — the figure echoed in my thoughts.
My husband-to-be, George, and I had chosen to follow parental patterns of tithing 10 percent and giving gifts above and beyond.
I knew no one who gave even close to 20 percent.
Yet I certainly cared deeply about using my money for life-giving purposes rather than for building up an arsenal of destruction.
Was George stirred as I was?
Through discussion, George and I soon reached agreement.
We would move toward the goal of giving 20 percent.
Thus began a joyful journey of stewardship as a married couple.
In the first year of marriage, we inched toward our goal.
We used bicycles while saving for a car.
George continued graduate studies while I started my first full-time job.
Within four years, we had a fuel-efficient car and our first child.
We had managed to reach 15 percent in donations.
Even though I stayed home with our infant and we had a tight budget, we were able to eat good, nutritious food, continue with retirement savings, and buy the things most important to us.
When George finished school, we moved to the United States for a job.
We moved at the right time — housing prices had soared in our area, and we sold our small condominium for several times the price George paid a decade before.
Our household income increased dramatically.
We had major stewardship decisions to make.
Initially, I felt disoriented in the new economic terrain.
Reducing our military taxes continued to be a high priority for us.
Since interest from mortgage payments is tax deductible, we invested in a spacious house on a wooded lot.
We committed to making our home an open place for those who needed a place of retreat from the stresses of human services, overseas work, or ministry.
Buying the house reduced the need for other stewardship decisions; after donations, mortgage, taxes, and utilities, our budget was more generous but not radically different from student days.
By the time our second child was born, we had nearly reached our goal of 20 percent donations.
We started catching up to our goals for university savings for our young ones.
And, to wrap up this series of excerpts, here is an excerpt of a letter to the editor from Jacob Hubert () which is the only example I’ve seen that takes Mennonite nonresistant / pacifist principles to a logical anarchist conclusion and determines that taxation itself is a violent act that Mennonites should not countenance:
Martin Shupack asserts that the federal government, while sometimes a “violent rebel,” can be an instrument for good when used for such causes as welfare for the poor, Medicare, Social Security, and other social programs designed to help those in need (“Violent Rebel or Valuable Servant,” ).
What Shupack does not seem to realize is that all government programs are the products of violence, regardless of who benefits from them.
Taxes can be collected only if the government backs up its taxation policies with violence and threats thereof.
The question, then, is this: are Mennonites absolutely for peace and against the initiation of force?
Or is the taking of money by means of violent coercion acceptable when the money will be spent on causes they regard as worthwhile?
If the Mennonite Church is to be consistent in its opposition to the use of force, it must be opposed to it in all forms — including the form of taxation.
This is the thirty-sixth and last in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
Today I’m going to try to sum up what we’ve learned along the way.
(Similar disclaimers apply to those I mentioned when I did this exercise for back issues of The Mennonite.)
First, the background: the (Old) Mennonite Church was a major Mennonite branch in the United States and Canada, distinct from the General Conference Mennonite Church (whose house organ, The Mennonite, I went over with a fine-toothed comb earlier this year), and from other Mennonite, Amish, and Brethren groups.
It has roots in America that go back into the late 17th century, but began to coalesce as a distinct organization in the late 18th century.
The original publication of this Church was called The Herald of Truth.
Another publication, Gospel Witness, began publishing in , and the two merged into Gospel Herald in .
At least in the early years, editors of these magazines had a great deal of authority in shaping and reinforcing Mennonite doctrine.
The Herald of Truth began publishing in the middle of the American Civil War.
This is helpful for us, as it is during war time that Mennonite doctrine about abetting war and bloodshed is most likely to come to the forefront and be made explicit.
As best as I can determine, the orthodox Mennonite practice during the American Civil War was neither to serve in the military nor to purchase a substitute to serve in one’s place if one were drafted, but instead, to take advantage of the (Northern) government’s policy that allowed draftees to be exempt from service on the payment of a $500 “commutation fee.”
Mennonite congregations were urged to organize fund drives among their membership to pay the commutation fees of Mennonite draftees who could not themselves afford such a sum.
This policy is in contrast to that of the Quakers, who discouraged members from paying such commutation fees and instead counseled them to refuse military service outright and accept the consequences.
(Some Quakers did exactly that, though others bucked the orthodoxy to serve in non-combatant roles or pay the fees.)
Mennonites were also discouraged from raising money to use as encouragement for non-Mennonites in their area to enlist (a technique meant to cause the local enlistment quota to be met and thereby stop the government from drafting others).
This was considered to be too close to “hiring substitutes” and therefore also forbidden.
Those stands formed the baseline from which Mennonite war tax resistance would later develop.
But at the time, it was accepted as a given that Mennonites should pay all of their taxes without question or complaint.
Indeed this was often put forward as one of the reasons why governments should tolerate Mennonite conscientious objection to military service — after all, they’re good taxpayers.
This doctrine was supported by the “two kingdoms” interpretation of the Render-unto-Caesar episode and the thirteenth chapter of Paul’s letters to the Romans.
In that interpretation, Christians were to be primarily loyal to the Kingdom of God, but were to mostly leave worldly kingdoms to do their own thing.
The kingdoms of the world were not meant to be reformed or to become Christian exemplars; instead, they were meant to wield the sword in a good old fashioned, eye-for-an-eye sort of way.
Christians could and should pay their taxes to such governments without blinking an eye, as the governments had every right to exact tribute on their terms from their subjects, and what they did with the money afterwards was their own problem, not that of the Christian taxpayers.
For this reason, for instance, many Mennonites would not vote — thinking it not to be their concern to try to direct the government in any way.
While I never saw any articles in the Mennonite Church magazines at this time promoting tax resistance, I did notice that some of the articles promoting taxpaying seemed to be doing so with an implied audience of pro-resistance heretics in mind.
So there may have been an underground current of tax resistance already running at this time.
World War Ⅰ brought the next big test for Mennonites.
In my study of back issues of The Mennonite, it seemed that the General Conference Mennonite Church was utterly unconcerned about the implications of buying “Liberty Loan” war bonds.
This puzzled me, as I knew from some earlier research that there were many examples of American Mennonites who were persecuted for refusing to buy such bonds.
I was eager to learn whether the Mennonite Church had been different in this regard, and from what I read in Gospel Herald, indeed it was.
Gospel Herald readers were counseled in no uncertain terms that they were not to purchase Liberty Bonds or in any other voluntary way to assist in supporting the war effort (which would include, for instance, even donations to the Red Cross).
However, they were to continue to pay all of their taxes as usual, and should not resist if attempts were made to confiscate their property.
Mennonites were under a great deal of pressure (frequently amounting to violent coercion) to buy war bonds.
As a result, there were a variety of attempts to find a way that Mennonites could demonstrate their contributions to the common cause in a way that would appease their oppressors without irritating their consciences.
Some gave to relief efforts, and others tried to find some form of government bond (e.g. “Farm Loan Bonds”) that would not be so tainted by war.
These had mixed success: the former had the disadvantage of being donations rather than loans, so it was harder for Mennonites to give in sufficient quantity to appease the mob; the latter was often frustrated — the Farm Loan Bonds never materialized, but some Mennonite groups were able to loan money directly to certain local banks in lieu of purchasing Liberty Bonds in a way that apparently was somewhat satisfying all around.
In Canada, Mennonites took the easy way out, purchasing their government’s war bonds, but with a provision that their contributions would be spent “for relief work only.”
It was not specified how such an intention was supposed to be put into practice.
For the first time in this period I read a Mennonite suggesting that paying war taxes is problematical, and that perhaps a conscientious Mennonite ought to take legal steps (reducing income, buying fewer goods and services subject to excise taxes) to avoid them.
Little changed in the period between the World Wars.
When I saw mention of war taxes, it was usually in the context of reinforcing the doctrine that Mennonites should pay any tax demanded under the “two kingdoms” principle.
During World War Ⅱ, Mennonites were again challenged by the pressure to buy war bonds.
This time the Mennonite Church did not hold up so well, though by all accounts the pressure was much less severe (I don’t know of any examples of mob violence being directed against Mennonites who refused to buy war bonds during this period).
Instead of whole-heartedly refusing to participate in funding the war by purchasing government bonds, the Mennonite Church went through a long and largely pointless process of trying to get their hands on government bonds that weren’t labeled “war” bonds so that Mennonites could purchase those instead.
This so-called “Civilian Bonds” program was a total fiasco, and resulted in Mennonites pouring millions of dollars into the U.S. war effort while at the same time congratulating themselves on witnessing to their “testimony of nonsupport of war.”
That said, during this period some of the rigidly pro-obedience-to-government interpretations of Romans 13 and the Render-unto-Caesar story began to be questioned.
Writers might drop the hint that paying war taxes was not something Mennonites ought to do cheerfully, but that they must do regrettably.
A secular (or at least non-sectarian) philosophy of pacifism began to assert itself in Mennonite circles, and traditionalist Mennonites were at pains to distinguish the Mennonite doctrine of “nonresistance” from this seductive impostor
In the post-war period I start to notice writers urgently defending the traditionalist line on Romans 13 and Render-unto-Caesar when it comes to taxpaying — so hints that there were war tax resisters emerging among Mennonites came before they were permitted to speak for themselves in the pages of Gospel Herald.
In the magazine begins to mention war tax resisters from outside of the Mennonite community, for instance from the Peacemakers group and the Society of Friends (Quakers).
These mentions are typically neutral, neither condemning nor recommending war tax resistance, but they indicate a curiosity about the practice.
Beginning in I also began to see periodic mentions of how much “of the taxpayer’s dollar” was being spent on the military.
The combination of these suggested an atmospheric shift in favor of war tax resistance, but it took a long time before Mennonite authors endorsed war tax resistance or Mennonite war tax resisters were mentioned.
Mennonites may have been given a bit of a nudge by hearing about the tax resistance campaign waged by some Amish people who objected to the social security program.
That campaign was covered in a series of Gospel Herald articles from and ultimately resulted in the government making some concessions to their conscientious scruples.
In the dam burst.
The Church of the Brethren and Mennonite Central Committee each formally addressed the problem of paying war taxes — which is to say that each considered that it was a problem, which is a far cry from the former Romans 13 orthodoxy which held that Christians should pay all of their taxes without concern or complaint.
There was a great deal of concern expressed, and one author tried to find a suitable legal path for conscientious objectors to military taxation by means of legal charitable deductions.
But it wasn’t until that an actual war tax resisting Mennonite surfaced in the Gospel Herald.
When John Howard Yoder’s “Why I Don’t Pay My Taxes” was published, Gospel Herald was aware that it was crossing the rubicon.
It preceded the essay with a lengthy disclaimer pointing out that it was a heterodox opinion but one that “deserves prayerful consideration.”
At that point, the debate came out into the open, as did other war tax resisters.
There was tension from the beginning between arguments for war tax resistance as a form of conscientious objection — that is, not wanting to participate in warfare by paying for it — and as a form of “witness” — that is, civil disobedience as a way of demonstrating to the government the seriousness of one’s concern.
Yoder’s influential essay was firmly in the “witness” camp, and much Mennonite war tax resistance — particularly what involved refusing and redirecting what was uncritically called “the military portion” of one’s income tax — is most-easily interpreted as a “witnessing” sort of resistance.
After the initial flurry of interest excited by Yoder’s essay and the reactions to it, there was a lull in coverage of war tax resistance that lasted .
In , though, the Mennonite Church met in General Conference and asked its Committee on Peace and Social Concerns to investigate how Mennonites ought to deal, in an acceptably Biblical way, with “the payment of taxes collected explicitly for war purposes and such other similar involvements in the war effort that they may find among us inconsistent with our profession as a peace church committed to Christ’s way and to suggest such remedial measures that will underscore our conviction and witness.”
An editorial titled “Dare We Pay Taxes for War?” followed shortly after, and the debate was reopened, but on much more favorable terms for the pro-resistance faction.
As the Vietnam War became more obviously awful, and the anti-war and civil rights movements erupted all around them, Mennonites began to be worried that they were missing the boat — that their timidity had kept them from making their vision of a peaceful and inclusive Christian community harmonize with what should have been a favorable moment for such a message.
Ought they to become more assertive with their message of peace and brotherhood?
To become activists?
Mennonite war tax resistance advocates became more bold, some asserting not only that war tax resistance was an acceptable Mennonite practice but that paying war taxes ought not to be — or going so far as to promote coordinated mass tax resistance on the part of Mennonites as a whole.
Don Kaufman gave respectable theological and historical cover to war tax resistance promoters with his book What Belongs to Caesar? At this point, the traditionalist arguments for taxpaying take on the aspect of tired clichés, and even the traditionalists tend to concede that paying taxes for war is something regretful even as they insist the Bible commands Christians to go along with it.
Mennonite Church-related colleges, subcommittees, and other institutions were increasingly taking up war tax resistance as a topic of discussion (or even instruction).
The Gospel Herald editor came out in favor of war tax resistance in an editorial.
The dream of some sort of government-certified way for conscientious objectors to pay their taxes without paying for war — the equivalent of World War Ⅱ’s “Civilian Bonds” — congealed in the form of the World Peace Tax Fund Act.
Early concerns about its value were soon stifled, and it would continue to attract attention from ostensible “people of conscience” throughout the years that followed.
In the Mennonite Central Committee created a “Taxes for Peace” war tax redirection fund, so to some extent war tax resistance was being formally endorsed and organized by a Mennonite body.
War tax resistance spread to other religious groups and to other countries (including, notably, a briefly-popular war tax resistance movement started by an Anabaptist pastor in Japan) during the 1970s.
Now with support from Gospel Herald editors, the pendulum had swung so far in war tax resisters’ favor that conservative foes were reduced to arguing “if you refuse to pay taxes for war, you should refuse to pay taxes for abortion and other bad things too.”
The magazine formally entered the lobbying game when it included pre-printed cards in one issue that U.S. readers could send to their Congressional representatives to urge them to support the World Peace Tax Fund legislation.
Peace Tax Fund lobbying would become a Mennonite Church project, with paid staffers working alongside (or as part of) the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund.
War tax resisters from the Mennonite Church, General Conference Mennonite Church, and Church of the Brethren began to coordinate their efforts, and then, through the “A New Call to Peacemaking” initiative and in other forms, they began to coordinate with Quakers and other Christian war tax resisters.
While there were many examples of Mennonite war tax resisters during this period, and while sympathy for the war tax resistance opinion seems to have become the dominant opinion in the pages of Gospel Herald, I don’t get the impression that the majority of Mennonites are actually practicing war tax resistance.
Whereas the Mennonite Church was way out ahead of the General Conference Mennonite Church when it came to conscientious objection to purchasing Liberty Bonds during World War Ⅰ, in this period they are largely playing catch-up to their General Conference cousins when it comes to war tax resistance.
In the Mennonite Church issued a statement “on militarism and taxation” that encouraged Mennonites to reduce their tax burden through simple living and charitable deductions, that endorsed some sort of legislation that would allow conscientious objectors to pay their taxes without paying for the military, that urged “careful biblical study” about taxpaying, that “recognize[d] as a valid witness the conscientious refusal to pay a portion of taxes required for war and military efforts,” and that encouraged Mennonite institutions “to seek relief” from the requirement that they withhold taxes from the salaries of objecting employees.
Conservatives regrouped, began to organize, and in the “Smoketown Consultation” of , issued a statement condemning tax resistance among other modern innovations.
Conservative criticisms of war tax resistance began to become more sophisticated and more critics of war tax resistance started coming out of the closet.
By , Mennonite Church bodies were under increasing pressure to take a stand one way or the other, and some did decide to endorse, to participate in, or, alternatively, to refuse to endorse war tax resistance.
The board of directors of the Mennonite Church voted to support the General Conference Mennonite Church in its lawsuit in which it was trying to free itself from the requirement that it withhold taxes from its war tax resisting employees.
This is the case even though the board was not willing to take any such action regarding its own employees.
That lawsuit died in infancy, leaving compliance or civil disobedience as the last tenable options for Mennonite employers.
When the General Conference Mennonite Church met in its triennial, the (Old) Mennonite Church was also meeting nearby, taking baby steps toward the eventual unification of the two groups.
But while the General Conference voted to begin a corporate civil disobedience action by refusing to withhold taxes from its conscientiously objecting employees, the Mennonite Church more meekly called for “continued study and discernment on the issue of war taxes” while affirming both conscientious tax resistance and conscientious tax paying as valid Mennonite behavior and begging the government for a Peace Tax Fund law.
Another General Assembly of the Mennonite Church was held in , and war tax resistance was again back-burnered.
The momentum of war tax resistance was already flagging by the time the Mennonite Church general assembly met in to again take up the issue that the General Conference Mennonite Church had taken the lead on.
They again put in a good word for Peace Tax Fund legislation, again urged Mennonites to “prayerfully examine” the issue of war tax withholding and to “continue to support” conscientious objectors to war taxes.
But there was no real meat on those bones.
They asked their board of directors to come up with a recommendation for what to do about withholding taxes from the salaries of objecting employees.
The assembly moderator spoke aloud a sentiment that I think was implicit in a lot of the noncommittal buck-passing: “Personally, I think the Peace Tax Fund is a way out of this.”
The process of deciding what to do about the withholding question bordered on the ridiculous.
First, as noted above, the general assembly asked the board to present them with a considered recommendation at their next () assembly.
The board conferred with other denominations who were wrestling with the same issue, and then took testimony at a General Board meeting in before voting (unanimously!) to recommend that war taxes not be withheld from the paychecks of conscientiously objecting employees.
Sounds like a done deal, right?
Not so fast.
When the general board met just before the assembly, they abruptly did an about-face, blaming this on the lukewarm-support their recommendation had gotten from district conferences.
They replaced their recommendation with one that removed any suggestion of refusing to withhold taxes, and instead called for more “study of the… issues” and, of course, more hope that a Peace Tax Fund bill would make the problem go away.
In other words: the same old same old.
But then when the General Assembly met, they surprised everyone by losing patience with this nonsense and calling the board’s original recommendation back for a vote — it passed with 59% of the delegates’ support.
Now it’s a done deal, right?
Nope.
When the general board met again soon after the assembly, rather than implementing the Assembly’s vote, they decided that “they would take a clear stand on military taxes and submit another recommendation to the next General Assembly sessions in ”!
In the general board tabled a motion to put the Assembly’s mandate into practice, instead deciding to wait until the conclusion of a “congregational study process.”
When the general board met again later that year, after that study process was complete, the new excuse was that “[b]oard members noted a lack of clarity on what the [General Assembly’s] decision meant.”
At the board’s first meeting , they finally agreed to honor requests from conscientiously objecting employees who did not want war taxes withheld from their paychecks, but only subject “to development of acceptable policies for implementation approved by the board.”
I saw no indication in Gospel Herald that any such policies were ever presented to the board for approval.
My guess is that the stonewalling tactics worked and the Mennonite Church never implemented the will of its General Assembly delegates.
When the General Assembly met next, at least as far as I can tell from the Gospel Herald coverage, the topic did not come up.
The foot-draggers had won.
By this time the war tax resistance tide was clearly receding.
Peace Tax Fund talk and attempts to get people to engage in safe, symbolic mini-resistance acts was swamping what conversation remained about whole-hearted conscientious objection to military taxation.
The Gospel Herald editorial page shifted gears again, from promoting war tax resistance to a more standoffish on-the-one-hand / on-the-other-hand vagueness — and would eventually say of war tax resisters that “we generally dismiss [them] as too zealous.”
By things had gotten so bad that not only was paying war taxes no longer seen as particularly worrisome, but even serving the military as a uniformed soldier was seen as something a Mennonite Church member in good standing could do.
